Antioch University Logo

For the Media

For journalists covering the conflict between Antioch University and the Coalition for the Common Good, this page provides answers to key questions, supporting documents, and additional resources.

For further information or comment, contact [email protected].

September 29 Statement as Antioch Re-files Lawsuit, Addressing the Question of “Standing”

“For months, Antioch has sought mediation aimed at an amicable separation from the CCG. We did not choose this legal battle, but we are prepared to fight it,” said Antioch University President Lori Varlotta. 

The University was prepared for the procedural setback it experienced yesterday. Less than 24 hours after the Greene County court denied Antioch’s preliminary injunction on standing grounds, an Antioch University Board of Governors member who also serves as a CCG director filed a new action. She is seeking emergency protection for Antioch’s Board, assets, governing agreements, and employees while the case proceeds. 

Antioch believes the director has standing to seek that relief. The court has not yet ruled on the new action. Importantly, the court’s Sept 28 decision addressed who could bring the prior case—not whether Antioch University’s case had legal merits and not whether or not the CCG violated its agreements. 

“The Antioch Board of Governors cannot be dissolved as the CCG claims. The Board, the president it hired to advance Antioch’s mission, and Antioch’s faculty and staff know what is best for this University. We are Antiochians. We will not stand down and let the CCG betray the promises and pledges upon which the Coalition was founded,” said Steve Crandall, Chair of the Antioch University Board of Governors.

Antioch University Statement on September 28

Today an Ohio Court denied the Antioch University Board of Governors’ request for a preliminary injunction. In denying Antioch’s request for a preliminary injunction, the Court confined its ruling to the issue of standing. The Court determined that the Antioch University Board of Governors is not the right party to bring this suit.

This is a procedural setback. 

To be clear, however, the court did not say anything about whether the lawsuit itself is meritorious. Today’s court decision does not resolve whether CCG’s proposed actions comply with the governing documents. Antioch maintains that CCG must follow the procedures required by its bylaws and the Affiliation Agreement before it can dissolve the Antioch University Board of Governors, assume control of Antioch’s bank accounts, interfere with Antioch’s relationship with the Higher Learning Commission, or terminate Antioch’s President. Antioch’s position is that those procedures have not been followed. 

The dispute is not over.

Statement From Antioch University President Lori E. Varlotta, PhD:

“We are fighting to preserve the rights Antioch worked so hard to codify in the CCG’s governing documents. We suspect that no college or university would want to join a coalition if it fails to make good on the agreements it signed with its cofounder.”

(See previous statements in the Updates section.)

Antioch is Fighting to Protect Its Independence 

Antioch University is challenging the Coalition for the Common Good’s attempted hostile takeover. On August 28, in a closed-door session that excluded AU representatives, the CCG adopted resolutions purporting to dissolve Antioch’s Board of Governors, seize control of University funds, and assume authority over Antioch’s relationship with its accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission. That same day, Antioch went to court to stop those actions.

Why Antioch is Standing Firm

Antioch is standing firm on three fundamental points that University leaders believe give Antioch the legal, practical, and moral high ground:

  1. The agreements we signed when founding the CCG protect Antioch’s autonomy.
  2. The CCG’s business model has not proven to be successful nor to benefit Antioch.
  3. Antioch’s future must be shaped by its own board and leaders who know Antioch best and love it deeply.

Antioch’s Autonomy Is Legally Protected

The “Merely Advisory” Claim Does Not Match the Governing Documents

CCG President John Comerford and Board Chair Dan Gifford have portrayed Antioch’s Board of Governors as merely advisory—a body whose recommendations the CCG may accept or disregard. The governing documents say otherwise.

Although “Advisory” appears in the Board’s formal name, the negotiated Charter assigns the Board oversight of Antioch’s affairs and grants it express approval rights over presidential appointments and terminations, accreditation changes, operating and capital budgets, amendments to key governing documents, changes to shared governance, and specified transactions involving assets and contracts. CCG Bylaws §6.4 separately requires the prior approval of the Antioch Standing Committee for enumerated actions. These are binding approval rights, not courtesy consultations.

The Charter provides an additional safeguard: it may be amended only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Antioch Board’s serving members. Antioch’s position is straightforward—the CCG cannot unilaterally dissolve the Board while bypassing the very approval and amendment provisions designed to protect it.

CCG points to the 2023 corporate reorganization, through which the former Antioch legal entity became the CCG and Antioch began operating within it as a division. But that change in corporate structure did not erase the safeguards negotiated as part of the same transaction. A change in corporate form is not a blank check to disregard the protections written into the founding documents.

CCG disputes Antioch’s interpretation, and the court has not yet issued a final ruling on the merits. But the central question remains:

If Antioch’s Board of Governors were merely advisory, why did the parties give it express approval rights—and exclusive authority to approve amendments to its own Charter?

The Founding Agreement Was Partnership, Not Control

Antioch did not join a system created by someone else. Antioch conceived the Coalition and helped build it as a partnership among mission-aligned institutions—each retaining its distinctive identity, governing authority, and institutional voice.

The Coalition’s own 2023 announcement described a structure of affiliated universities, not one institution subordinate to another. Its nine-member governing board reflected that balance: four directors appointed by Antioch, four by Otterbein, and one independent director. The founding documents likewise reserved specific approval rights to Antioch’s Board and Standing Committee.

Two people directly involved in creating the Coalition confirm that understanding.

Former Antioch Governor William M. Plater recalls that governors objected to the word “advisory” and were assured that Antioch’s Board would retain meaningful authority. He states that he would not have voted for the affiliation had he understood that the CCG could later dissolve the Board.

William R. Groves—Antioch’s Chancellor when the Coalition was designed, an attorney, and a participant in drafting its founding documents—puts it plainly:

“The name may be confusing. The authority is not.”

Groves explains that Antioch’s leaders conceived the Coalition before selecting Otterbein as its first partner and deliberately protected Antioch’s authority through the Affiliation Agreement, CCG Bylaws, and Antioch Charter. The Coalition was designed as a partnership of independent institutions—not as a vehicle for one founder to absorb or control the other.

The firsthand accounts explain the founding bargain. The signed documents memorialize it. Both point to the same conclusion: Antioch entered the Coalition on promises of equality, mutual respect, and institutional autonomy. CCG should honor those promises.

An Unsuccessful Business Model That Doesn’t Serve Antioch

CCG Promised Growth. Antioch Inherited Programs in Decline.

The five Otterbein graduate programs transferred to Antioch were presented as engines of growth. Federal data tell a different story.

IPEDS that combined degree conferrals across the five programs fell from 107 in 2019–20 to 96 in 2020–21 and 89 in 2021–22—a decline of nearly 17 percent before the transfer was announced in July 2022. Not one of the five programs demonstrated sustained growth during those three years.

One program faced an even more fundamental setback. In a June 5, 2026 letter, CCG President John Comerford acknowledged that the nurse-anesthesia program’s hospital partner withdrew in fall 2022 and that the transfer had been announced prematurely.

Antioch was told it was receiving program “gems” ready to grow and scale. In reality, it inherited a turnaround—not a turnkey operation.

The Business Model Doesn’t Add Up

CCG alleges that Antioch failed to make required profit-sharing payments. Antioch President Lori Varlotta, PhD, told the Keene Sentinel that the transferred programs were operating at a significant loss. If the programs did not generate a positive margin, there was no realized “profit” to share.

A CCG spokesperson stated that CCG could not determine the financial results of the individual programs. Yet, at the same time, the CCG president publicly cited more than $1.5 million in new tuition revenue and nearly $1 million in annual savings from joint contracts—figures that differ materially from those calculated by Antioch’s financial team. How can the CCG credibly claim precise financial gains while simultaneously maintaining that it cannot determine the programs’ actual financial performance?

Conversely, AU has calculated program-level financial performance by comparing attributable revenue with direct and allocated costs. CCG’s failure to understand, corroborate, or constructively challenge these analyses is a central part of the problem.

The governing question is not whether the programs generated tuition revenue. Of course they did. The question is whether their actual revenue exceeded their full costs and whether their financial performance demonstrated a credible path to long-term viability.

Top-line revenue is not bottom-line profit. CCG’s selectively reported figures do not answer the question at the center of its allegation.

Document: OU transferred programs by the numbers

The Board Book That Became a “Full Attack”

Following a directive from the Antioch Board, the University’s new president and her leadership team conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of CCG’s finances and governance. CCG’s president and Board chair responded by attacking both the findings and the leader who delivered them.

The analysis was included in the March Antioch University Board Book whose content speaks for itself. The posted sections give journalists a direct look at the analysis that CCG leaders later characterized as disloyal, biased, and manipulative:

  • Page 4: The authors explicitly state that they want the Coalition to succeed. They acknowledge that the data contain both favorable and unfavorable findings and argue that transparent financial analysis should strengthen the partnership.
  • Pages 9–12: The report examines the transferred programs’ revenue trends, instructional costs, and use of investment funds—the underlying numbers behind Antioch’s questions.
  • Pages 17–19: The authors identify gaps in the proposed shared-services model and offer an alternative sequence for developing it. After noting that President John Comerford chose a different approach, they write: “We are following that direction.”
  • Page 21: The authors acknowledge that the newly assembled data will require further refinement. They do not present their conclusions as final or beyond challenge.

Again and again, Antioch’s leaders raised questions, showed their work, acknowledged uncertainty, and proposed a path forward. They presented the analysis as the beginning of joint problem-solving.

CCG’s leaders offered no counter-analysis. They simply dismissed Antioch’s findings and recast the work of its leadership team as personal disloyalty by the Antioch University president—who also served as CCG’s executive vice president. Comerford branded the report a “full attack on the CCG,” shifting attention from the analysis to the leader who delivered it.

That reaction turned a financial review into a flashpoint—and helped transform a disagreement over data into a struggle over Antioch’s authority and future.

Document: March 12 Board Book

If Conformity Overpowers Curiosity, Can the Common Good Prevail?

President Varlotta did what accountable university presidents are supposed to do: she followed her Board’s directive, examined Antioch’s financial and operational position, and reported what her team found—even when the findings were unwelcome.

The Antioch University Board is not an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. It is the body that ensures Antioch’s president can protect the University’s mission, students, institutional interests, and long-term viability—even when doing so requires telling CCG leaders what they do not want to hear.

After CCG leaders challenged Antioch’s analysis, Antioch proposed bringing in a neutral mediator to help the parties resolve their differences. On June 30, CCG agreed to mediation. For the next two months, both sides prepared for that process.

Then, on August 28—just five days before mediation was scheduled to begin—CCG abruptly canceled it. That same day, CCG adopted resolutions purporting to dissolve the AU Board, take control of Antioch’s finances, and assume authority over the University’s relationship with its accreditor.

The dispute is therefore about far more than competing interpretations of financial data. At its core is a fundamental governance question: May Antioch’s president and Board exercise independent judgment on behalf of the University, or may they reach only conclusions acceptable to CCG?

The court’s subsequent order directing the parties back to mediation preserves an opportunity to answer that question through negotiation rather than takeover.

Document: Antioch University Advisory Board of Governors Charter, Revised July 1, 2023

Two Court Orders Blocked CCG’s Actions and Returned the Parties to Mediation

On September 1, the court issued a temporary restraining order blocking CCG from implementing its August 28 resolutions or taking adverse employment action against Antioch President Lori Varlotta, PhD. The order preserved Antioch’s existing governance, financial authority, and accreditation relationship while the case proceeds.

On September 14, the court continued the temporary restraining order for another 14 days and directed the parties to mediation. Although the orders are interim and do not decide the case’s merits, they prevented CCG from implementing the August 28 resolutions or removing President Varlotta while Antioch’s legal claims are under consideration. On September 28, the Court denied the Antioch University Board of Governors’ request for a preliminary injunction. In denying Antioch’s request for a preliminary injunction, the Court confined its ruling to the issue of standing. The Court determined that the Antioch University Board of Governors is not the right party to bring this suit.

Antioch welcomed both the court’s intervention and its direction to resume mediation. Antioch had repeatedly proposed mediation and ultimately secured CCG’s agreement to participate. CCG then unilaterally canceled the process just five days before the scheduled mediation was to begin.

Antioch believes it holds both the legal and moral high ground. Published statements from former leaders directly involved in forming the Coalition—as well as expressions of support from alumni, faculty, staff, students, and friends of the University—reinforce Antioch’s position. An independently organized, alumna-led petition has drawn additional support. Together, these voices underscore what is at stake for the entire Antioch community.

Antioch Will Not Surrender Its Future

The court’s orders have prevented CCG from implementing its August 28 actions while Antioch’s legal claims are considered. Antioch remains prepared to mediate in good faith—and equally determined to defend the governing rights that protect its leadership, resources, academic mission, and future.

“Antioch conceived the Coalition, designed its framework, and invited Otterbein to become its first partner. We envisioned a coalition grounded in equality, shared purpose, and mutual respect. CCG’s actions stand in direct opposition to what was planned, promoted, and pledged. Throughout this ordeal, Antioch has  taken the high ground and will continue to do so. But decency is not surrender. We will not allow our voice to be silenced, our resources to be commandeered, or our independence to be erased. We will fight to keep Antioch University Antioch.”

 —Lori E. Varlotta, PhD, President of Antioch University

Media Contact

For media inquiries, please contact the Director of Strategic Communications and Public Relations, Karen Hamilton, via [email protected].

Contact Us