BY JONATHAN REES
The key part of what the AAUP Redbook has to say about the role of faculty in the selection of a new university president is in the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities:
“Joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken when an institution chooses a new president. The selection of a chief administrative officer should follow upon a cooperative search by the governing board and the faculty, taking into consideration the opinions of others who are appropriately interested. The president should be equally qualified to serve both as the executive officer of the governing board and as the chief academic officer of the institution and the faculty. The president’s dual role requires an ability to interpret to board and faculty the educational views and concepts of institutional government of the other. The president should have the confidence of the board and the faculty.”
I know this because my university just selected a new president, and Mike De Cesare from the AAUP’s Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance has been helping our chapter navigate this process. Not only did our administrators fail to follow the AAUP’s best practices but also this has become something of a trend in Colorado lately.
It started with the selection of a new president at our flagship institution, Colorado State University in Fort Collins in 2022. From Colorado Public Radio:
“We are concerned about a number of issues regarding the finalist for the position,” said Mary Van Buren, a professor and president of the CSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “The faculty, staff, and students at CSU would have welcomed the opportunity for meaningful participation in the decision-making process, but unfortunately the administration didn’t allow that.”
Here’s a bit from the FAQ section linked from the announcement of our new president in Pueblo:
Did Armando Valdez participate in the evaluation of other candidates?
As then-Chair of the Board of Governors, Valdez participated fully in the efforts to identify and recruit the next president until such time as it was apparent that the selection of a sole finalist from the slate forwarded by the search committee was not going to occur. Valdez resigned his position as a Board member so that he could be interviewed and considered by the Board.
There are many problems with the information in that paragraph, but I’ll just note that there wasn’t a single faculty member involved in choosing the person who is now our president.
What happened at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs, however, might be the worst example of all. This is from the Colorado Springs Gazette (paywalled, I have an electronic copy):
UCCS sociology professor and search committee member Jeffrey Montez de Oca said that because Sobanet was not chosen as a finalist, she was not properly vetted in the same way the two named finalists were. “She did not participate in the interview process, which means there was no way for the campus to provide feedback,” he said. As a result, some people were surprised, others shocked, angered or frustrated by the hiring decision, he said. “There was the concern prior to this whole process that a decision was made in advance, and the final outcome could be seen as confirming that,” Montez de Oca said.
“This is really concerning because at least in some segments of the campus there’s very low morale and the sense the administration doesn’t value the opinions of faculty and staff, and is not particularly concerned about how faculty and staff feel. This only increases that feeling.”
Shock, anger and frustration are definitely the right reaction to this sort of thing, but I have had trouble getting people on my campus to see things similarly. Too many faculty treat presidential selection like the weather; they can’t do anything about it other than bring an umbrella and hope for the best. I think we should all have higher expectations.
Contributing editor Jonathan Rees is professor of history at Colorado State University Pueblo.
