University faculty and staff can receive flu and COVID-19 vaccines at no cost this fall through the following options:

On-Campus Clinics

In partnership with Wegmans Pharmacy, flu vaccine clinics will run through November. Both flu and COVID-19 vaccines will be available and there is no cost to you. , though walk-ins will be accepted as space allows. For more information including dates, times and vaccine information, visit the ���ɱ���貹����.

Upcoming clinics:

• Friday, Sept. 26, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., 003 College of Law (Dineen Hall)
• Thursday, Oct. 2, 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., Skybarn (South Campus)
• Wednesday, Oct. 22, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Milton Room, Whitman School of Management
• Thursday, Nov. 13, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., 500 Hall of Languages

Coverage Through the University’s Health Plans

Benefits-eligible employees enrolled in the  can receive flu and COVID-19 vaccines at no cost when administered by an in-network provider or pharmacy using your Optum Rx or Excellus BCBS member cards.

Continued Access to COVID-19 Vaccines in New York State

On Sept. 5, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an  authorizing pharmacies in New York State to administer COVID-19 vaccines without a prescription to individuals ages 3 and older. This ensures broad access across the state while providers await updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. Employees outside of New York State should check with local providers for vaccine availability and requirements.

For questions, please contact HR Shared Services at 315.443.4042.

Interim Vice Chancellor, Provost and Chief Academic Officer  has announced the reappointment of as dean of the for a five-year term. The reappointment follows a comprehensive review process that included feedback from key stakeholders, including Newhouse faculty, staff and advisory board members.

“Dean Lodato took the helm of an already strong school and managed to make it even stronger,” Provost Agnew says. “His energetic and collaborative leadership and his emphasis on innovation, industry partnerships and an exemplary student experience have marked his five years as dean and led to many wins for Newhouse.”

Lodato became dean in July 2020, and his tenure has been marked by dynamic forward motion, expansion and success in several key areas for the school.

He was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the (IDJC) in Washington, D.C., to create new knowledge, foster a more informed and engaged citizenry and better equip students for success in media, communications, policy, governance and citizenship. He also established the undergraduate program, which dovetails with the work of IDJC and further strengthens Newhouse’s robust study away offerings, which also include and .

Under Lodato’s leadership, the school , making a Newhouse education more accessible to new populations and serving as a model for other Syracuse schools and colleges looking to expand online undergraduate education.

Lodato also spearheaded the creation and renovation of several learning spaces at the school. These include the , which provides co-working and co-location space to media and tech startups who want to work with talented Newhouse students, and the new , a hub for undergraduate and graduate students interested in a career in sports communications.

He has increased investment in research and creative activity, which has resulted in more than $7.3 million in sponsored research funding, and articulated the goal of strengthening the connection between communications and technology, particularly through .

Early in his time at Newhouse, Lodato implemented salary equity across Newhouse professional and support staff and faculty. He also has overseen a 17% growth in the faculty, representing a more diverse population.

“Working with the stellar faculty and staff of the Newhouse School has been an incredibly rewarding experience, and it has been my honor and privilege to serve as dean for the past five years,” Lodato says. “I am excited to continue our work together as we expand and realize our shared vision for the future of the school as a place that provides students with the best possible education and training for careers in communications. And I know that collective work is what makes Newhouse the top communications school in the country!”

Lodato joined the Newhouse School after more than 14 years at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, where he served as associate dean and associate general manager at Arizona PBS. He previously spent 16 years as an award-winning television reporter and anchor for network affiliate television stations in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Phoenix and Fort Myers, Florida.

To request an interview with Professor Germain, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, executive director of media relations, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu.

������, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law.

Donald Trump’s legal woes have been the center of international attention throughout this 2024 presidential election year. In less than two months before the Presidential election, here is a summary of where all those cases currently stand.

The E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case.�� Trump’s year of litigation started in January with author E. Jean Carroll recovering  an $83.3 million judgment for defamation against Trump for accusing Carroll of lying when she claimed publicly in 2019 that Trump had sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room more than 20 years earlier, in 1995 or 1996.�� Trump posted a bond to obtain a stay while he appeals the judgment.

The NY Attorney General Financial Statement Fraud Case.�� In February, New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil fraud case against Trump for overstating the current market value of his properties in the personal financial statements he had submitted to lenders and insurance companies, came to trial without a jury before Judge Arthur Engeron.�� Normally, civil fraud requires a plaintiff to prove that a victim believed and relied on the truth of the statements, and suffered damages as a result.�� But the Attorney General successfully argued that a special anti-fraud statute, New York Executive Law § 63(12), allows her to recover disgorgement of benefits received without showing that anyone relied on or was harmed by the false statements.�� Judge Arthur Engeron entered a judgment against Trump in February for $354 million in disgorgement, plus interest, which would have required him to post a $464 million bond to obtain a stay pending appeal.�� The appellate division allowed Trump to post a reduced bond of $175 million to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.

The Georgia Election Interference Case.�� On June 5, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued an order staying District Attorney Fani Willis’s election interference case against Trump to consider Trump’s motion to disqualify the District Attorney for having an undisclosed relationship with her special prosecutor, Nathan Wade.�� The trial judge, Scott McAffee, had previously allowed the case to continue if Nathan Wade resigned to prevent the appearance of impropriety.�� The defendants appealed McAffee’s well reasoned order, and the case has been on hold by the appellate court since that time.�� Frankly, I thought McAffee’s opinion was sound, and I never understood why Willis’s relationship with Wade in any way harmed Trump or the other defendants.

The New York Falsified Business Records Case.�� Next came New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s convoluted criminal case against Trump for falsifying his business records to hide a $175,000 hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels through Trump’s then attorney Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election.�� I have .�� On May 30, 2024, the jury found Trump guilty under NYPL § 175.10 of falsifying business records to commit fraud and to conceal another crime, although the jury did not have to indicate who was defrauded or what other crime Trump was trying to conceal.�� Trump was supposed to be sentenced on September 18, but Judge Merchan granted Trump’s request to postpone sentencing until after the election.�� Sentencing is currently scheduled for November 26.

The Federal Cases.�� The two federal court cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith are the most serious cases Trump faces, and both cases have been stuck in the mud for months.

The Federal Election Interference Case.�� The federal election interference case before District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington DC has been delayed by questions about presidential immunity, and now also by technical issues around special prosecutor Jack Smith appointment.�� These preliminary issues will need to be resolved before the case can proceed on the merits.

On July 1, 2024, the Judge Chutkan’s and the DC Circuit Court’s rulings that Donald Trump, as a former president, had no immunity from prosecution.

Frankly, I expected that the Supreme Court would reverse those decisions, and recognize that a president has immunity from criminal prosecution for “core” presidential activities.�� In fact, at the hearing before the Supreme Court, both the government and Trump’s lawyers agreed that an ex president is immune from prosecution for “official” presidential matters, and that there is no immunity for “private” matters.�� Trump’s team even agreed that many matters alleged in Smith’s complaint sounded like “private” not “official” matters.�� The disagreement was on how far “official” matters would go.

I was fairly confident that the Supreme Court would draw the official /private distinction by focusing on the president’s motives – was the president acting to further what he believed to be in the interests of the country, or did he have personal, corrupt, motives to benefit himself at the expense of the country?

I was wrong. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion granted immunity far beyond what the Trump lawyers sought at the hearing. The Court held, first, that a president’s motives are entirely irrelevant to whether his activities are “official” and subject to immunity, or “private” and not subject to immunity.�� Under the Court’s ruling, a president has absolute immunity for anything plausibly connected to his presidential functions, including the most blatant kinds of corruption (such as selling presidential pardons to the highest bidder, or directing the military to assassinate a political rival).�� While it is difficult to imagine that the founders intended the Constitution to provide broad immunity from prosecution to a President Benedict Arnold, who sold out his country for personal gain, that was essentially the Court’s holding.

In an attempt to redraw the official/private distinction, Prosecutor Jack Smith has filed a superseding indictment eliminating the allegations that Trump conspired with his governmental advisors, and has labeled his allegations that Trump conspired with non-governmental advisors to be “private.”  But the labels do not matter.�� Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump is immune from activities that fall within a very broad sphere of presidential activity, even if he had false, improper and corrupt motives for his actions. Given the extremely broad way that the Supreme Court defined “official” activities and rejected motive, it is difficult to see how any of Trump’s attempts to overturn the election would qualify as purely “private” activities.

Nevertheless, Judge Chutkan and the DC Circuit will likely try to read the immunity ruling more narrowly than the Supreme Court wrote it, and allow the case to proceed.�� And if the case does proceed, and Jack Smith is able to prove his allegations that Trump knew he lost the election, knew that his election interference claims were false, and nevertheless sought corrupt motives to overturn the election, then surely a jury would convict him.  But would the case survive another visit to the Supreme Court?  Judge Chutkan set a briefing schedule for the parties to argue the immunity question, with Trump’s reply brief due on October 29.�� Since the case cannot move forward before the court rules on the immunity question, the only thing that could happen before the election is the filing by Jack Smith of evidence that support his arguments that Trump’s activities were “private” and not immune.

The second preliminary issue is whether Jack Smith’s appointment as special prosecutor was constitutional, and if not whether the case should be dismissed.�� As discussed below, Judge Eileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump on the grounds that Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.�� That decision is currently on appeal, and Chutkan stated on the record that she did not find Judge Cannon’s ruling to be “very persuasive.”  Judge Chutkan will likely decide that special prosecutor Jack Smith can proceed with the prosecution, but the process may be delayed further for briefing on that issue, and the ultimate ruling on Judge Cannon’s dismissal could derail the election interference case.

The Classified Documents Case.

In my view, the strongest case against Donald Trump is the classified documents case, which has been stymied at every turn by Judge Eileen Cannon.�� Cannon, a Trump appointee, was previously and harshly , in an unusual unanimous per curium opinion, for improperly exercising equitable jurisdiction over the government’s investigation into the classified documents taken by Trump while leaving office.

After months of slow walking the case, on July 15, 2024, Judge Cannon , determining that the Justice Department regulation under which Special Prosecutor Jack Smith was appointed was unconstitutional under the appointments clause of the Constitution.

The Constitution’s appointments clause requires the President to appoint, and the Senate to confirm, all “Officers of the United States,” except for “inferior Officers” who can be appointed by Officers without Senate approval if the Officers are authorized by law to make the appointment.�� .�� The courts have recognized that mere “officials” and “employees” can be hired without authorizing legislation, presidential appointment, Senate approval, or direct appointment by authorized Officers.�� The distinctions between “Officers,” “Inferior Officers,” “Officials” and “Employees” is not defined in the Constitution, and depends on factors like power, authority, control, and permanency.�� By tradition, cabinet officers and the heads of agencies are Senate-approved “Officers,” including the Attorney General and all 93 US Attorneys running the district offices of the Justice Department.�� The thousands of assistant US Attorneys and all of their staff are inferior officers, officials or employees, and are not appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate.

The technical issue is whether Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland under the Department of Justice’s special counsel regulation, is an “Officer” who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, an inferior officer who was appointed by an authorized Officer, or an official or employee who could be hired without Senate approval or congressional authorization.

The legal firepower behind Judge Canon’s decision comes from a law review article by Professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary Lawson, Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment As Special Counsel Was Unlawful, 95 Notre Dame L. Rev. 87,115–16 (2019).�� Calabresi and Lawson also filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in the Trump immunity case, and before Judge Cannon.�� Even though it was not an issue the Supreme Court agreed to hear, Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in the election interference case throwing his support behind questioning Jack Smith’s appointment.

While Calabresi and Lawson’s technical legal arguments, and Judge Cannon’s adoption of those arguments, are plausible, they fly in the face of 50 years of practice, including the Supreme Court’s famous Watergate tapes decision in , brought by special counsel Leon Jaworski, who was appointed under a similar justice department regulation, and whose appointment was not questioned by the Supreme Court.

There are legitimate criticisms of the Special Counsel Regulations.�� If the Justice Department has a conflict of interest, should they be the ones to select the special counsel?  In 1978, after Watergate, Congress created a Special Prosecutor Act, later called the Independent Counsel Act, which allowed majorities of either party within the House or Senate Judiciary Committee to request that the Attorney General appoint a special prosecutor.�� If the Attorney General made the appointment, a three judge panel of appellate judges, rather than the conflicted Attorney General, would select the special prosecutor.�� This process provided some assurance that the special prosecutor would be independent from the conflicted justice department.�� The Supreme Court upheld the Act in , but the Clinton administration did not seek its renewal, preferring instead to control the process through agency regulation, which has created the issue.

There is really no way to know if the current Special Counsel Regulations are constitutional until the Supreme Court rules on them.�� But even if they are not constitutional, there is no reason for dismissing the indictment against Trump.�� Instead, the courts should allow the government to fix the problem by appointing a senate-approved “Officer,” such as the Attorney General or another United States Attorney to supervise the prosecution.�� Professors Calabresi and Lawson have recognized that this is a technical constitutional issue that can be cured by appointing an approved “Officer” to supervise the case.�� The technical defect in Smith’s appointment, which is easily curable, did not prejudice the defendants.�� There is no reason that a United States Attorney appointed to supervise the case now could not ratify Smith’s past work, and allow Smith to proceed with the prosecution under supervision.�� A case prosecuted by Jack Smith under the supervision of the United States Attorney would be like the thousands of cases brought by Assistant United States Attorneys every day in every jurisdiction.

What Happens Next?

The presidential election will take place on November 5, 2024.

If Trump wins the election, there is little doubt that he will cause the federal election interference and classified documents cases to be dismissed, either by appointing loyalists to take over the prosecution in the Justice Department, or by issuing himself a presidential pardon.�� The Supreme Court has signaled in its immunity decision that a self-pardon is within the President’s absolute authority.

However, a presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes, so it would not prevent any of the state prosecutions or cases from continuing.�� It is not clear whether a state prison sentence could be implemented against a sitting president, or how it could be implemented, or whether some sort of federal supremacy would prevent the states from interfering with the activities of an elected president.�� Another constitutional crisis is likely if either of the state criminal cases results in a prison sentence.

If Trump loses the election, he will likely face years of trials and appeals before the legal issues will be finally determined.

A professor who is an expert on criminal court pretrial appearance is partnering with computer science faculty to see if artificial intelligence tools and optimized data analysis can improve fairness and efficiency in scheduling defendants’ court dates.

, Crandall Melvin Professor of Law and a 2022-25 Laura J. & L. Douglas Meredith Professor of Teaching Excellence, is one of three researchers on the project, “.” She and , assistant professor of computer science at the University of Virginia (formerly of Syracuse University) and , associate professor of computer science and engineering at Washington University in St. Louis received a $600,000 National Science Foundation (NSF) grant for the research. They are examining three issues: the uniformity and fairness of criminal court-date scheduling processes, if individual circumstances are considered when setting court dates, and whether a “smarter” computerized system can produce more equity and efficiency in those processes.

Ensuring that defendants who are released before trial return to court as scheduled is one of the primary goals of the pretrial process, Gouldin says. “Fortunately, data across jurisdictions suggest that most defendants show up for court as required. With bail reform efforts in many jurisdictions leading to higher rates of pretrial release, courts are focused on ensuring that pretrial appearance rates remain high,” she says.

Scheduling court appearances on dates and at times that work for defendants will help keep pretrial appearance rates high and avoid court system inefficiencies, she believes. Many factors—often legitimate hardships—can influence whether a defendant appears in court when scheduled. Gouldin says those factors are not consistently considered by courts and there is little uniformity in how appearance dates are scheduled from court to court.

The researchers are working to produce a system that predicts dates and times when defendants are more likely to appear versus being assigned an arbitrary court date or time. They believe having that knowledge, along with more flexibility in scheduling court dates—such as setting evening or weekend appearance dates—could improve pretrial appearance rates and create a more equitable scheduling process overall.

No-Show Factors

“Whether a defendant can appear in court when assigned depends on individual circumstances. Some may have work or school obligations or need to find childcare or arrange transportation. Others having substance addictions or mental health issues may be more at risk to miss dates; some defendants just don’t understand the court system; and people with disabilities may face specific challenges getting to court on time. In addition, some defendants who must repeatedly return to court can wait all day for their cases to be called, then find out the proceedings are postponed for a month,” Gouldin says.

But criminal courts can be inflexible, she adds. “Maintaining a perfect attendance record under these circumstances, and when so many court appearances are adjourned seems especially unreasonable. I believe courts can likely improve pretrial appearance rates by developing more flexible scheduling practices that account for these challenges.”

Data Input

This summer, Gouldin is working with research assistants to develop partnerships with judges, court administrators, pretrial service offices and criminal defense organizations in Syracuse and across New York State to collect data on the information that courts consider and the processes they use to schedule criminal cases.

Fioretto and Yeoh will take that data and apply what they call “” a scheduling approach that integrates machine learning algorithms with mathematical optimization and computerized logical reasoning. The AI-based approach aims to predict dates and times when an individual would be more likely to be able to appear in court. The researchers will incorporate defendants’ potential constraints into the date predictions and then develop mechanisms to ensure that court appearances are scheduled fairly for defendants of different races and genders.

Time, Money Costs

Fairness is an important consideration because judges can impose consequences for missing scheduled appearances even when defendants have justifiable reasons for not showing up, according to Gouldin. “Judges often make high-stakes decisions that implicate fundamental liberty interests, such as detaining defendants before trial or imposing bail, electronic monitoring, pretrial supervision or curfews. Failures to appear also become part of a defendant’s court record and may impact future pretrial liberty.”

The researchers are also mindful of the court’s administrative efficiency goals. Missed court dates mean inconveniences and costs of time and money for judges, attorneys, court personnel, witnesses and other defendants whose cases may be delayed as a result, as well.

Phase 2

Gouldin hopes eventually to gather court appearance data that will include defendants’ demographic details to assess whether specific factors affect the ability or inability to meet a pre-set court appointment. That step could reveal further ways to increase fairness in scheduling, she says. Having individuals return for their court appearances is more important than ever now, Gouldin says, because pretrial reforms in the U.S. over the past 10 years have overhauled traditional money bail systems so that more defendants are released before trial.

Gouldin’s pre-trial appearance work has been cited in federal court decisions, in state and federal amicus briefs and in testimony to the House Judiciary Committee. In 2022, she served as a consulting expert for federal litigation where a Tulsa County, Oklahoma money bail system was eventually deemed unconstitutional. Her article, “Keeping Up Appearances,” an analysis of law and policies governing pretrial appearance, which has been developed in part with the support of the NSF grant, is due to be published in the University of California Davis Law Review later this year.

was among a trio of researchers who looked at voting patterns in communities of shuttered newspapers in 2018 and found evidence that the decline in local print media has contributed to political polarization in the United States.

Published in the Journal of Communication, their work caught the attention of a Florida daily newspaper, resulting in its decision to take a break from publishing national politics on its editorial pages. The aftermath of the paper’s decision created additional data for Dunaway and her counterparts to explore, ultimately fueling their co-authored book, “Home Style Opinion: How Local Newspapers Can Slow Polarization” (Cambridge University Press, 2021).

“The newspaper experiment we conducted in Palm Springs was fascinating,” says Dunaway, who was interviewed about her research for an that aired in early August. “Our findings added to the list of important societal consequences from declining local journalism. There is so much more research to be done on the democratic consequences emerging from changes in the digital media landscape; we need to better understand the effects of declining local news as well as how people get their information and decide what’s credible, and the impact on discourse and democracy more generally.”

This fall, Dunaway joins the University’s Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship as the research director, a role that will empower her to expand on her work, guide student research and mentor the next generation of journalists and policy makers.

She will also serve as a tenured professor of political science, teaching courses in American politics, political communication, public opinion and mass media for the Maxwell School.

“Johanna Dunaway’s research and insights into the relationships between news, communications and political polarization is crucial to our work,” says Margaret Talev, veteran journalist and Kramer Director of the institute. “In addition to her scholarship, she shares in our commitment to the ideals of the institute. We’re excited for her to join us.”

Dunaway’s position is supported by a gift from alumna and Maxwell School Advisory Board Vice Chair Cathy L. Daicoff ’79 M.P.A. Her $1.2 million endowment last year established the Marguerite Fisher Faculty Research Fund, named for the Maxwell School’s first woman to have been promoted to full professor.

“I’ve no doubt that Johanna Dunaway will be an invaluable asset to Syracuse University, positioning the institute to be a leader in research that advances our understanding and promotes civil discourse and mutual understanding at this crucial time in our nation’s history,” says Daicoff, who retired as a managing director at Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services.

Based in Washington, D.C., the institute is an initiative of the Maxwell School and the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. It will promote nonpartisan, evidence-based research and dialogue in the public interest and support the work of faculty and students in the center of American democracy.

Dunaway earned a Ph.D. in political science from Rice University in 2006. Her research spans several subfields of political science—communication, public opinion, political psychology and political behavior—as well as media effects, media institutions and emerging communications.

She joins Syracuse University from Texas A&M University’s Department of Political Science, where she was a professor. Her previous roles also include serving as the Joan Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy, and serving as an associate and assistant professor in Louisiana State University’s Department of Political Science and Manship School of Mass Communication. She began her academic teaching career on the faculty of  Sam Houston State University’s Department of Political Science.

In addition to “Home Style Opinion” she is the co-author of “News and Democratic Citizens in a Mobile Era” (Oxford University Press, 2022) and a forthcoming book with Cambridge University Press, “The House that Fox News Built? Representation, Political Accountability and the Rise of Partisan Cable News.” She also co-wrote the 11th edition of a popular textbook for political communication courses, “Mass Media and American Politics.” (CQ Press, 2022).

“Professor Dunaway’s research, teaching, extramural funding and public impact make her an excellent fit with the goals of the institute,” says Maxwell Dean David M. Van Slyke. “Her values align with the institute’s mission and are core to an educated and engaged citizenry which is necessary for a stronger and thriving democracy. I am excited by the leadership she’ll provide in partnership with institute Director Margaret Talev and the broader Syracuse University community.“

Dunaway says she is excited about launching research projects and partnering with news outlets, nonprofits and other organizations to “figure out what’s working and what isn’t; what’s reaching the audience; what’s adding to political rancor and various forms of partisan polarization.”

She hopes to further examine the decline of print media and explore financial models—some of her past work has focused on the impact of media ownership. She’s especially interested in gathering data to show the impact of declining local news and the rise of partisan and national news on the behavior of elected officials.

Dunaway also looks forward to having an opportunity to collaborate again with Josh P. Darr, one of two scholars she partnered with on the local newspaper and polarization project five years ago. Darr joins Newhouse this fall as an associate professor of communications. He will also hold a courtesy appointment in the Maxwell School’s political science department and will serve as a senior research associate at the institute.

“I’m excited to build on our prior findings,” says Dunaway.

She adds, “If nothing else, sharp declines in public trust in the media and government institutions suggest an urgent need to understand the extent to which these changes are fueling political corruption and a general lack of political accountability. I’m excited to get to work.”

Two years ago, Syracuse University launched , a $1.5 billion fundraising campaign that recently exceeded $1.052 billion in funds raised. Capitalizing on that momentum, Syracuse University’s Department of Athletics today announced it will seek to raise an additional $150 million as part of the Forever Orange Campaign with one singular goal in mind—elevating the student-athlete experience.

“The Forever Orange campaign has been transformative for Syracuse University as a whole and we are so grateful for the donors, friends and alumni who have provided support,” says John Wildhack, director of athletics. “We recognize that creating a truly superior student-athlete experience demands a focused initiative that aligns academic and athletic aspirations. Philanthropy is critical to creating an environment in which student-athletes can thrive in their sport, in the classroom and in their careers. As a department, we are competing to attract the most talented student-athletes from around the nation and globe. Creating an unprecedented student-athlete experience will require equally unprecedented donor support for those who choose to wear Orange.”

As part of Syracuse Athletics’ fundraising initiative, Manley Field House, which has been the hub of activity and the center of student-athlete life for Syracuse University’s athletics for nearly 60 years, will be, over time, transformed into the John A. Lally Athletics Complex, a state-of-the-art academic and athletics village that will benefit all student-athletes. Named after alumnus and three-time football letterwinner John Lally ’82, he and his wife, Laura, , which will be entirely funded by private philanthropy.

“John and Laura have been incredible partners over the years,” says Chancellor Kent Syverud. “We are grateful for their loyal support of Syracuse University—as donors, as champions and as fans. This is a defining moment for Syracuse University Athletics. The launch of this transformational project advances our trajectory to further create and foster a world-class culture of academic and athletic excellence.”

The first phase of the multi-million, multi-year project will commence in spring 2022 with the construction of a new front entrance. As part of this initial work, the Student-Athlete Academic Support Program will have an expanded state-of-the-art area to meet student needs through private in-person meeting spaces for expanded tutorial appointments and academic advising, along with career and life skills programming. Available to all student-athletes, the expanded academic support facility will house private rooms for student-athletes to utilize for completing class assignments or studying between classes. Additionally, early work will include an enhanced multi-display Hall of Champions experience. The display will celebrate the accomplishments of Orange student-athletes in the classroom and on the field in real time, as well as recognize alumni successes. This area will also serve as a gathering and event space that can be used for special events, along with day-to-day activities and programming.

Wildhack notes the revitalized complex will benefit all student-athletes at Syracuse University, improve recruiting and increase retention.

“Thanks to John and Laura’s generosity and the philanthropic support of other donors, our student-athletes are receiving a holistic experience that positions them to achieve their aspirations, on and off the playing fields,” says Wildhack.

The Lallys began thinking about how they could make an enduring impact on the University after retiring a few years ago. “It started with a donation to resurface one of the practice fields and the vision grew from there. Teamed up with Chancellor Syverud, John Wildhack and Head Football Coach Dino Babers, Laura and I became more and more excited about ways to impact the experience for generations of student-athletes to come,” says John Lally, a graduate of the Martin J. Whitman School of Management and an offensive guard for the Orange from 1977-82. “It was clear to us they had the chemistry to accomplish great things, and that motivated us to take on a bigger role. We have been exceedingly happy with that decision.”

Originally from Clarence, New York, Lally is the former president and owner of PCB Piezotronics Inc., headquartered in Depew, New York. Together, he and Laura are active philanthropists, having supported the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and Big Brothers Big Sisters of Western New York, along with supporting many other charitable organizations. In addition to their 2019 gift to create the Lally Complex, the couple also established an endowed scholarship to be awarded annually to a student-athlete on the football team.

This is a crucial time to be involved with the University, Laura says. “We believe in the leadership and the vision for Syracuse University, that makes a huge difference to us knowing that the University is in such good hands.”

Babers says he is grateful to the Lallys for their leading gift that will hopefully inspire others. “John is an incredible alumnus and storied Syracuse football player and, with Laura, they are an incredible team to help us reach new heights as a football program,” Babers says. “With their support, our student-athletes are positioned to s쳮d to their fullest potential.”

The new Lally Complex will support the academic and athletic experience of the 600 student-athletes across all sports at Syracuse University. Additional enhancements to the facility will be announced as new philanthropy is secured. As part of the vision for the Lally Complex transformation, the Department of Athletics is considering enhancements that include the creation of a new Football Operations Center; a One Team Center, which will be utilized by all of Syracuse University’s Olympic sports teams; a student-athlete academic center to expand resources for academic support and professional and career development; updated dining and nutrition facilities; renovated locker rooms, medical training and strength and conditioning facilities; and modernized facades on the exterior of the complex.

About Syracuse University

Syracuse University is a private research university that advances knowledge across disciplines to drive breakthrough discoveries and breakout leadership. Our collection of 13 schools and colleges with over 200 customizable majors closes the gap between education and action, so students can take on the world. In and beyond the classroom, we connect people, perspectives and practices to solve interconnected challenges with interdisciplinary approaches. Together, we’re a powerful community that moves ideas, individuals and impact beyond what’s possible.

About Forever Orange: The Campaign for Syracuse University

Orange isn’t just our color. It’s our promise to leave the world better than we found it. Forever Orange: The Campaign for Syracuse University is poised to do just that. Fueled by 150 years of fearless firsts, together we can enhance academic excellence, transform the student experience and expand unique opportunities for learning and growth. Forever Orange endeavors to raise $1.5 billion in philanthropic support, inspire 125,000 individual donors to participate in the campaign and actively engage one in five alumni in the life of the University. Now is the time to show the world what Orange can do. Visit to learn more.