You make an excellent point about the appearance of sexism here. But, just to clarify, professors are not a Dean's employees. The labor structure at a university is very different than it is at a production company. Faculty governance makes tenured faculty colleagues of the Dean, not employees. The Dean has the power of the purse over special projects and new hires (albeit not as much as the Provost) but cannot fire tenured faculty, or even do much to order them around. Every aspect of faculty-administration relations is negotiable and negotiated. And to respond to imenergetic's point below, when tenured faculty make a vote of no confidence, it is a big deal. It would not scare me away from LMU at the moment. SFTV and the institution will weather this transition. But it is a sign of serious discontent. I have not seen a statement from the University itself about this, and certainly no message to prospective students. I am a bit puzzled that the University is not reaching out to prospective students about this. (In response to your initial question, I would say that Larry Summers was sacked from his position as President of Harvard for being abrasive. Technically, he resigned, but it amounted to the same thing. It is clearly rarer for men to be penalized for being abrasive. But it is more likely in the university setting than in the corporate world.)I thought all the coverage seemed sexist. Can you name a single man- ceo, cfo, dean- that’s been fired for “being abrasive”. If anything it makes me think that Loyola is still operating like it’s in the 1980s. In the 3 years she headed that school, job placement after graduation went up. She didn’t get fired for job performance. She essentially got fired for her personality and how the other professors (her employees) felt about her management style. I can’t help read between the lines that every other person named in the articles- who fired her, her is temporarily replacing her, etc- are all men.