The search is on for Provost Robert Blocker’s replacement, and while Ed Board understands the reasoning behind Al Niemi’s plans for a closed search, we disagree.
Good things rarely come from processes shrouded in secrecy, especially when they’re needlessly kept private. Niemi’s complaint that the publicity that comes with being associated with a new search — mainly derived from his own negative experiences — could negatively affect candidates shouldn’t keep the SMU community from being a part of choosing someone as essential to the school as the provost.
What is there to hide?
This is yet another example of the SMU administration abusing its status as a private institution to hide vital and important information from the student and faculty communities.
The claim that candidates’ reputations at their own schools will be damaged is surely less important than making sure we choose a provost that everyone approves of. And if the damage is so drastic, how did Niemi wind up at SMU? How does Florida’s higher education system, which operates based on the principle of openness, still function and attract good leaders?
Blocker and new Meadows School of the Arts Dean Jose Bowen were both hired after extensive searches in the public eye. To say that only candidates found in a privately conducted search will meet the university’s high standards, then, is a slap in the face to Niemi’s colleagues. Surely we could all agree that Blocker and Bowen are both more than qualified for the responsibilities of their positions.
And giving students and faculty a chance to meet finalists and have input on the final decision contributes to a sense of community. Feeling like you’re an active participant at your university, that your opinion counts, is central to encouraging participation and fostering a sense of empowerment.
Public meetings with students don’t just have “some benefits,” Dean Niemi, they are essential elements to a search for the right candidate for a position that will affect every person affiliated with this university.
The above arguments don’t even include the most logical one against conducting a private provost search.
It’s all about the numbers.
Should 15 people have unilateral decision-making authority over something that will affect 10,000 students and countless more faculty members?
The answer, of course, is a definitive no.
No matter how good the search committee’s intentions, there’s no way that 15 people should make a decision without any input whatsoever from the 10,000 others affected.
That’s what the public meetings are for — a chance for the student body and faculty members to voice their input. Even if either group doesn’t like the candidate that is eventually selected, they at least were able to play a role in the process.
And that’s all Ed Board is asking for.