I just heard on WEMU this morning (perhaps this was discussed at the last BoR meeting?) that the search committee for the next EMU president will soon begin and the committee will be on the small-side, about a dozen or so people. EMU BoR chair Thomas Sidlik spoke about the need to keep the committee of a reasonable size (last time around, there were apparently over 30 people on the committee), while faculty member Ken Rusiniak said something about the need for faculty to be involved in the process.
I wasn’t privy to the process last time around, but I think Sidlik is probably right: a search committee for anything should be any bigger than it absolutely has to be. But Rusiniak also has a point. Everyone has a stake in the search of course, but while students graduate and go on with their lives and administrators tend to “move on” too (either as suits somewhere else or back to faculty), faculty are often in it for the long haul, and faculty are the ones that are supposed to be helping to shape the educational mission of the university.
In any event, we’ll see how it turns out. I suspect the search process has the potential to make things once again “interesting” at EMU this year.
As a former two-term Student Government Senator as well as chairman of Public Relations, I was heavily involved when EMU undertook the presidential search for President Shelton. I can remember Student Government holding several town hall meetings including a “Meet the Candidates” forum where students and faculty had the opportunity to ask the candidates their visions for Eastern Michigan as well as what they felt their roles were in regards to student/administration relations.
I can say with all candor, that out of the candidates that I remember we ended up with the least desireable of all those candidates in Samuel Kirkpatrick. I am not only speaking from a personal perspective but also that of many of my Student Government colleagues. How did we come to such a decision? Well…the search committee took SO (and I really want to emphasize that) long that most if not all of the other candidates were offered other positions and withdrew their name for the running. So we basically ended up with President Kirkpatrick by default.
I understand that selecting a University President is a very serious task, and with all the controversy surrounding our school this may be one of the most important selections in many, many years. I implore the search committee, and those of you still in Michigan to put pressure on the committee to select someone who has a vision that in some way includes faculty and staff. And when that decision is being made…please let it not take 8-10 months so as to miss taking advantage of the cream of the crop of individuals who can take our school to the next level.
-Charles Davis
Dayton, Ohio
’02 EMU Alumni
I remember Regent Jan Brandon c**k blocking some of us to get more student involvement in the last presidential search committee. I might’ve mentioned this before, but I felt more students and faculty, and less administrators (and one less alum) were needed on the committee. But with Jan Brandon actually in the audience, she kind of had a way of focusing her lasers on the other student senators who eventually sided with her over me. She was so proud of the work she had done and was so offended by my actions, as I was later informed by then-Student Body President Eddie Davis. Davis told me how angry she was.
I liked Charles Davis’ idea of the townhall format being included in the search process and I hate myself for not having thought that up myself when i was puttnig my plan forward. Nonetheless, he’s right on the dime about having this done in a timely fashion.
I agree with Jim and Charles’s points above. We all agree, as my colleague from Social Work Lynn Nybell said to the
Board of Regents last week, “none of us want to be hiring the next ex-President of EMU.” We need a succdessful search that results in hiring a capable president…EMU has not ever in recent years used the normal method of searching for a president: a collaborative effort of the faculty and the Board, along with other selected community groups. Two faculty members is
too small a number to represent the relevant knowledge that the EMU faculty could bring to a presidential selection.
I agree with Mark and others. That is why I also feel that having ONE student on the Committee will not allow the diverse needs of the students that attend EMU be represented. That is why I am advocating for a Graduate Student to added to the Committee. I will even go as far to say that there should be three students – a Undergrad, a Master’s Student, and a Doc Student.
I am calling on the AAUP and Faculty Council to support the Graduate Student Senate in our efforts.
This also is another reason why there is a need for a Graduate Student Senate. I urge any Graduate Student that reads this post to please visit http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/emugradsenate/ and sign the petition supporting the efforts of the Graduate Student Senate. I also ask that any faculty that teach, advise, and mentor Graduate Students to please pass this on to them as well. We want to be the voice of the Graduate Students. Please consider supporting the Graduate Student Senate as the voice of the Graduate Students.
Thank You,
Chris Bylone
I can appreciate the call for involvement and representation on the Search Committee. However, I am having difficulty with the numbers. Faculty want more than two seats (they represent about 690 members); emeritus faculty will be offered one seat (that represents 420 emeriti); students will be offered a seat (that represents 21,000 students). I guess I am having difficulty understanding why faculty think they are underserved by two seats. As for “knowledge and history” who knows more than the emeriti? My guess is that whatever number is chosen, there will be those who are unhappy about it.
While I understand the importance of having the various constituencies involved, the question is always one of balance. Two faculty to represent 690 faculty is not out of line with the other representations. To wit, one emeritus for 420 emeriti, one student for 22,000 students, one alumnus for 120,000 alumni. As for knowledge and expertise, the emeriti represent more than 10,000 years service; alums probably know very well what conditions need improvement(especially recent grads). I am not convinced that current faculty and students might not have a conflict of interest on this matter.
Interesting point, EMU Supporter, the idea that the current faculty and students may have a conflict of interest if they have a say in selecting the next president. How so? The norm of American universities is for members of the faculty and members of the board of Regents or trustees to carry out the search as a joint, cooperative enterprise, with approximately equal members on the search committee. The final decision of course rests with the Board, but the faculty presence on the search committee is thought to ensure consideration of actual real-life institutional needs in the selection. And it’s true that EMU has had some spectacular failures in the presidential selection process – just as it’s true that the EMU faculty have been excluded from our searches. Mere coincidence? Or a consequence of excluding the group with the most expertise and deepest long term committment to the University?
I do not diminish the dedication of any of the other groups you mention, EMU-S, nor do I say that faculty are special people with special insights. But faculty are experts, they know their university’s needs, and their careers are typically devoted to their current university. What’s the conflict here? Seems like expertise ought to be used, and committment valued, when making decisions for the university. Heck, most American universities follow this model as they conduct presidential searches, and most universities have top leaders who are successful. Why not at EMU too? Let’s follow the proven models of success, and we’ll have a better chance of a successful hire of a capable leader.
If EMU had run our last two searches in ways that reflect national norms, I am sure EMU would NOT have build our “TajmaSam&Pam Palace” and would NOT have had the national scandal over the Administration’s cover up of the murder and rape of Ms. Laura Dickinson in her dorm room.
Mark,
I have to differ on you on the point were you say Faculty are the “experts, they know their university needs” So you are saying that the student population or the staff of the university do not know the needs of the university?
I will agree the faculty are experts in their field of study and are co-experts of what needs to happen to increase the value of the education at EMU. **that is not to say EMU educational value is low**** I think students are just as much as an “expert” as to what needs to happen in the classroom. We are the ones effected directly by any change that happens at this university. Yes others are effected too, but it all comes down to the student. AND sometimes students are the ones who can ask the question that no one wants to ask because we “can’t get hurt” for what we say.
Sometimes faculty who have been around the university FOR A LONG TIME are set in their ways, but new faculty who come in with bright, fresh, thought provoking, and “out of the box” ideas don’t always speak up for the fear their tenure may not be granted if they make the people who have the power to grant their tenure, their fellow faculty members who have tenure, mad.
The students always have the fresh ideas. They don’t have the institutional memory the faculty and staff do. So when they come on campus processes that seem so easy and understandable to the new person it may not. By them asking the questions of why is it done this way or saying I think if it was done this way it would be easier. Do not discredit them because they have only been here for a short time. Sometimes the person who does not have the institutional baggage sometimes are the ones who will come up with the most creative ideas.
So as much as I respect you, Mark, I find it disrespectful that you feel students and others are not equals when it comes too knowing the needs of the university.
Chris, while I think that students (and everyone else) deserve a stake in the process here, I think that by definition students are not as much of an “expert” as a faculty member when it comes to what needs to happen in the classroom. This is why we have faculty teaching classes.
Certainly students have experiences that are valuable to bring to the table for a president search. So do alumni, staff, administrators, etc., etc. But in my opinion (which is of course shaped by the fact that I am a professor) I think that faculty have “the most” to bring to the table in terms of experiences, and the most at stake. To use myself as an example: I’ve been a student three times over at the undergraduate, MFA, and PhD levels. That makes me an alumni three times over too. So I do have a sense of those constituent needs.
I’ve been at EMU for 9 years now, and I’ve seen various things happen or not happen in that time. Many faculty have obviously been here longer, and while that does potentially lend a “set in your ways” kind of conservatism, it also provides an institutional history and long-term perspective. Most students are here less than 6 years; many current students here a lot less than 6 years. That might bring some “fresh ideas,” but it might also bring not a whole lot of experience, too.
I’ve been teaching at the college level for 19 years now (counting my experiences as a graduate student at a couple different places). Again, many faculty have a lot more experience in the classroom than I do. Students, hopefully, have less than 19 years of college classroom experience. Further, I think the side of the classroom that the student sees really does not tell the whole story, which is why it is so common in popular wisdom to assume that college professors only work the 10 or so hours a week they are actually teaching a class.
And finally, there’s the issue of what group has the most at stake. Students, hopefully, come and go. The idea is you’re not supposed to be here for a long time; rather, students are supposed to leave college and go on to a career. Alumni can be around in a sense for a long time, that is true, but (again, speaking for myself as an alum) the connection is more often about the overall image of the school, about donating money, memories, sports, etc. The connection. Administrators certainly come and go, too.
No, the only two constituents that I can think of at most universities and at EMU who are in it for the “long haul,” so to speak, are staff and faculty. Once a faculty person earns tenure, they rarely move on to another university as a professor (maybe as an administrator). And once that person is promoted to full professor, the only way they can really move to another university (at least in my field) is if they become some kind of “hot shot” and are in demand.
Most students and interested alumni have only had to endure part of the last two terms of our last two less than successful presidents. I had to be there from beginning to end, and I suspect that I will experience whoever we hire next from beginning to end. So in that sense, my stake as a “long-termer” is higher.
And again, just to bring this back to one of the original points: I think Sidlik is wise in wanting to limit the size of the committee, which inevitably means less representation from different groups.
Hey Chris,
Thanks for the comment or critique of my prior comment. But I agree with Sitedad’s reply…and I’ll raise
another point too: You overgeneralize about “students”. They are diverse. And frankly most of them don’t
have much interest in how a university is run….they want it to serve them, and it should. And student needs
at EMU have been too often dishonored or neglected by institutional choices.
Lots of students don’t know what a Regent is, or what employment law requires in even the most general
sense, and most of them have little grasp of the concept of a budget, to name just a few examples. TO say that is not
to disrespect students – it is to recognize that they are students. And most of them are not interested
in any student government activities or in how a university is managed….unless it’s done badly, then
they are dissatisifed and tend to transfer out or become cynical.
Students like yourself are entirely atypical, Chris. Most really good students aren’t seeking to get involved
in running a university – they are studying and preparing to move on. Further, they lack, as Sitedad points out
much basis of comparison to other universities. I well recall my own student days – active in all kinds of campus
issues and organizations and elected to office, etc., etc. — and very few of my
peers were all interested in those things. Same is true today, but more so.
Not so long ago, I had a chat with a student who was all excited about the idea of EMU starting a PhD in history program….Now I’m proud of my history colleagues at EMU, and I think we do a great job, but the idea that EMU 1) could ever afford to start a PhD history program, or 2) that students who got a history PhD from Eastern would find careers as historians, is just totally
insane. Not insane – ill informed about the profession, higher education, the job market, indeed ill informed
about every relevant detail pertaining to a PhD history program. Which is fine: the student did not
have the PhD and relevant experience to know what was involved. So we talked, and I think the facts became clear to the student: History is a terrific thing to study, and those who want a PhD in the field need to do so at another type of university. This student is outstanding,
but lacked the experience and knowledge to see that for EMU to launch a PhD in history makes about
as much sense as me opening a software company and taking on Bill Gates’s Microsoft: certain failure.
Do you see the analogy here? A smart person who was confidently advocating an absolutely unworkable, expensive
idea that would have been harmful to students’ interests if implemented. A fine person, a smart person…but not yet the person
who should have a major role in selecting the next President.
The univerity should be all about students and the search for knowledge, for education and truth.
To recognize that students and faculty are different is not disrespectful, Chris, it’s just a description of
reality!
I will agree that student and faculty are different! But you are also giving a generalization on students. Were I felt you where disrespectful to the students was that as I read your post I said to myself “Were do you get off saying that faculty are the “experts.” I am by no means an expert in Higher Education, but I am working on it!
(whole reason I am in the program I am in)
So because the general student body, as you say, do not care about the runnings of the university the student voice should not be at the table?
I get this feeling that even though it is not being said BUT there is this thought that students are not smart enough to have the “power” to help to select the next president or help to make decisions on what happens at the university.
However I have a different opinion on students being interested in their “workings” of the university. During my undergrad I was just as involved with University Governance as I am here at EMU. Yes I will say I am a student who knows to much for his own good.
I also feel that the same statement for faculty could be said. I am sure there are faculty who could really care who the Regents are or who the President is, as long as they get their pay check, do the job they love to do teach students, and they get their tenure they are fine.
Same goes for citizens of a town, state, or even the country. As long as the streets are cleaned, the cops are on the streets, firehouses are full, and EMS show up when called, as well as taxes stay low. When that does not happen people will come out in numbers.
But do we say that because people only come out when something goes wrong they should not have someone representing them at the table?
Why should students not have an equal seat at the table? I get the feeling people think WE will not be informed to make decisions.
What are faculty so scared of? Will the students who are involved actually come up with ideas faculty did not think of? Or that we will actually make sense?
As I move out of my student tenure into my tenure I make a pledge to all the future students I will interact with that I will value your voice and use my privilege as a staff/faulty member to ensure you have a vote equal to mine. The student voice is something to be valued equally!
Steve,
To your comment:
“I think that by definition students are not as much of an “expert” as a faculty member when it comes to what needs to happen in the classroom. This is why we have faculty teaching classes.”
This to me sets up the idea there is one way learning in the classroom. I am sure you did not mean it to sound that way. I hope you will learn just as much from your students as they do from you. Though I agree faculty are the ones that design the class, provide the students with the knowledge, and have the final say what goes on in the classroom. I feel the same way when I “teach” my programs, however I always want people to challenge my ideas process.
Also, your statement sets up the feeling that faculty should not be accessed by students. Are you saying the surveys we fill out every term is just a document that goes on the shelf and collect dust? We are told it is not, I hope that is really the case! Do you feel that faculty should not be evaluated by students. If the faculty are the “experts” of the classroom – why do we fill out evaluation forms? Are we not qualified to access the faculty?
Thirdly, I feel it sets up this “children should be seen and not heard unless the parents ask.” Does the faculty feel that students should be seen and not heard unless the faculty “ask” them too?
I hope faculty do not feel they have the right to “give” the students the power question the process put in front of them. FYI, we are not waiting for you to give us the power, one cause we already have it and two we will use it when we feel we need to use it.
Do not misunderstand me here, Chris. I very much believe in the student-centered classroom and I of course learn lots from my students, and I students have a right to have a role in the presidential search. I’m not sure why you’re implying that I’m against these things.
All I’m saying is that faculty and staff have a bigger stake in the presidential search than students, and I already explained all that above.
Now, you raise some other things in your comments here that I’ll try to address briefly:
* I do learn a lot from my students and I do want them to challenge/engage in the materials of the class. However, it is not a two-way street. As you put it, “faculty are the ones that design the class, provide the students with the knowledge, and have the final say what goes on in the classroom.” I don’t actually believe knowledge can be “provided” by anyone, but faculty and students are clearly not “equal” in this relationship.
* Student evaluations are a whole different issue that we could talk about a lot if you want, though I’m not quite sure how it fits in here. I read my evaluations of course, and I read them especially carefully when I’m teaching a new class.
* As as far as what you’re saying at the end of your post about students as children and student rights and such. Um, I really don’t know where you’re going with this….
Again, I agree with Sitedad’s reply to Chris — and I would add, Chris, that it is NOT faculty members who are
determining how many students should be on the pres. search committee. Your argument is less with faculty members who are willing to debate the point (and my position is clear: the committee should be mainly made up of Regents and faculty), than with the Regents who are making this decision. My argument has merely been that the national model for successful searches should be used at EMU, for a change,and that that model is of a joint, cooperative faculty-Board project for pres. searches.
Faculty members typically do – and darn well should! – know more about the university than students.
And students like you Chris are atypical, as was I; but don’t confuse your own enthuasiasm for getting
involved with campus events with what you call “the student voice” as if on university budgets, strategic
goals, etc., etc., there is a single “student voice.” In contrast, the faculty is quite likely to have a fairly
unifed point of view on such matters.
But by all means, Chris, question the faculty and also question The Administration and The Board. I’d
never want it any other way. “Question Authority” always. Still, have you noticed, that relatively few students are as engaged in this as you? In contrast, most faculty are engaged with these issues. It’s part of our professions to be so
engaged.
Peace.
I am just going to say we have to agree to disagree.
I do not agree faculty have the bigger stake in what happens at the university. So to keep debating this issue in public or at least via the web will not be productive, we are not speaking WITH each other we are speaking AT each other.
Maybe there could be a in person public debate where we talk about the role of the student and the faculty in the university.
I have the up most respect for the faculty, however I do not believe in a system that the faculty are “higher” then the students when it comes to governance of the university. The classroom a different story, but there is not a HUGE step of a difference.
I believe in a web structure of leadership, we are all equals no matter how close we are to the center of decision making.
If we all didn’t have to work so much to pay for the rising cost of a college education, many more students would have the time to be more involved in campus politics and general student life. But as long as tuition continues to rise and state funding continues to be cut, it becomes harder and harder for any students to be able to get involved outside of classes and work.
I hope that you all know that I am an egalitarian and that I believe that student participation in the governance of a university, including graduate student representation, is essential to its well being. However, on this particular kind of committee, I do believe that experience is extremely important. For example, I would prefer a professor who has been here many years over a newly hired professor in representing the faculty as a whole on this committee. I would also prefer a graduate student to an undergraduate student in representing the student body as a whole. I certainly don’t believe that I personally have sufficient expertise and experience to do that job well compared to others who have been at EMU much longer and know what pitfalls to look out for in a candidate. Since I have only known a few of the many EMU presidents, I would not be able to compare and contrast the respective virtues of the applicants.
Student representation on the committee is important to ensure that the student point of view is considered in a genuine fashion, but faculty should have more representation than the students whom they teach and mentor. Not only do professors primarily have the interests of students in mind anyway in determining what is good or what is bad for the university as a whole (almost all of us became profs for the sake of our students, not for the sake of ourselves), but we also have more knowledge about what it takes to serve those interests, as well as greater ability to make a case for candidates who will keep those interests in mind once they are hired.
It does seem a good idea to have a small, manageable committee, but I hope that once the search gets under way, the regents will make sure that the candidates visit a diverse group of faculty and students to offset the limited representation that a small committee necessitates. The reactions to the candidates of that wider group of faculty and students should also be taken very seriously after the campus visits. I also hope that throughout the search, the faculty and students on the committee are allowed to communicate openly with the people whom they represent about the qualifications of the various candidates. Only that will ensure that the search is transparent and credible—sometimes searches are decided even before the candidates come to visit because the committee has confined its attention to only certain kinds of applicants.
Interesting discussion above. However, I think we are forgetting the university is not only students and faculty. When the Governor appoint a regent, she indicates that the Regent represents the State of Michigan. As long at this is a state institution, parochial interests need to be put aside for this important function of selecting a president.
If one only read this blog, one would certainly have a distorted view of universities. In one instance, (Sitedad) professors don’t move because they don’t get many offers to move. Tell me honestly, how many professors at EMU would remain if they got offers at a major university?
Mark, you seem to be very involved in what happens here, but again be honest in responding to how many faculty have any interest (other than personal [financial]) for being here? Why are faculty so seldom seen at so many student and other university events? How many faculty drive to campus, teach their classes, and leave?
As for a conflict of interest, that fact that you stand to gain financially is reason enough. Too often faculty invoke student needs as reasons for strikes; it is always the welfare of the student that is at stake. Yet, once the economic issues are resolved, they cheerfully return to the classroom.
As for expertise, who among us is an expert at selecting? After watching universitiy committees select faculty, administrators, and presidents I have come to the conclusion that after all the due diligence, the screening, the interviews one has a 50/50 chance of being right. Faculty have no more expertise here than anyone else and if they have I would like to know where they got it. An earlier posting noted that professors are experts in their fields due to their study and continued active research. How does this jibe with “expert” knowledge for selecting a president or selecting anyone else?
Just a couple quick responses for now:
* If I were to get an offer somewhere else would I move? Well, it depends. While times have been tough around EMU for a while, this is still a pretty good job for someone in my field and with my background. As I’ve said before many times, I really like my students, my colleagues, the kind of work in terms of teaching and scholarship I’m allowed to do here, etc. Plus my wife and I like the area a lot; in fact, we’ve talked about how we wouldn’t want to move on to a “major university” in a place like the middle of Oklahoma or Kansas or North Dakota or something. So on the whole, EMU is a good gig.
On the other hand, never say never. I don’t anticipate anyone handing me a job at another university– major or otherwise– anytime soon, but that doesn’t mean I won’t ever apply for another job at another university ever again. And keep in mind that it is not at all uncommon for professors– especially those who are “stars” or a sort in their field– to move around to different schools to improve their situations.
Ultimately, I think being a college professor is pretty much like every other job: no one working for Ford would turn down a better job at GM just out of some sense of “loyalty,” would they? Or let me put it this way: my father (who was upper-middle management for most of his career at one company) used to say you can love your job but your job will never love you back. I don’t think that’s quite as true for academic jobs, but I think there is some wisdom in my father’s words.
* Not to rehash all the strike stuff, but since I’ve been here and on strike three times, it has never been exclusively about money. It always ends up looking like that though because the last thing that the administration (and, for that matter, the union too) always get stuck on is money. Of course, the last contract was more complicated because of how insurance figured into it. In any event, I recall previous contract negotiations where there were a ton of things much more important than money, most notably the need to hire more faculty members, which, of course, we need to do to better serve students.
* I do think that faculty have more expertise in these matters than some others who will/should be a part of the process for reasons already mentioned here, but I will agree with you about one thing, EMU Supporter: the screening/interview process is always and inevitably a bit of a crap-shoot. The powers that be thought we had good search processes set up when we ended up with Kirkpatrick and with Fallon, but those searches obviously didn’t turn out. No matter what this committee does, there are no guarantees. Of course, that’s kind of the way life is, right?
EMU “Supporter”,
You ask “how many faculty have any interest (other than personal [financial]) for being here?” Nearly all faculty members have professional and other interests in being at EMU. Nobody goes into the profession of college teaching
with financial well being as the main or even secondary motive! (Relative to education, professors are
poorly paid.) People go into college teaching and research because they love their subjects and want to
share the excitment of their fields, and love being engaged in the life of the mind. EMU faculty members
have close ties with colleagues, friends, students, the community — lots of reasons for “being here” beside
the greed you seem to allege motivates us. (Yeah, we like being paid for our work…that’s not a fault,
is it, in our culture? But most of us also love our work and are devoted to EMU).
You also ask “Why are faculty so seldom seen at so many student and other university events? How many faculty drive to campus, teach their classes, and leave?” Could you define “so seldom”? I go to most EMU theater productions,
and i see so many colleagues there I can’t even say hi to them all. I don’t go to many sporting events
because that’s not a big interest of mine and have some non-EMU priorities; do you have a problem with that? (Even if all EMU faculty attended every single EMU basketball and football home game, attendance would still remain pretty darn low, so
don’t blame us for the miniscule fan base!).
I don’t know how many faculty “teach their classes and leave” – how would you even count that? Most teachers, K-16, when they get home do more teaching related work, and that’s why those EMU profs are carrying in those bags as
they leave MJ or PH or Strong or Porter – work to be done at home. It’s part of our profession, which
you appear not to grasp, EMUS.
EMU has a very heavy teaching load, compared to comparable schools. Teaching takes time, EMUS.
And hey — EMUS, if you think that somehow faculty participation on a presidential search committee
in a meaningful way is going to get us bigger salaries and is thus a conflict of interest, you gotta be crazy. A successful university president’s most important set of relationships is with his or her faculty: You can’t change or improve a university
without the active support of the faculty. This is a fact, well established by experience. So a candidate
for the job should not be isolated from meaningful contact with faculty….which means the committee
needs substantial faculty representation (not just 2 in 11).
That said, the Board this year has a plan that includes more faculty representation than it had the
last couple of times. So I commend the board for some incremental improvement. It’s a new board, and I
respect them, but the norms of higher ed presidential searches could be useful for EMU.
And EMUS – you say that hiring is just a 50/50 chance whether the right person will be hired. You seem
to apply this to all EMU hires, from searches for faculty members all the way up to the presidents.
Are you serious – you think half the faculty members hired were bad hires???!! You must hate EMU to
think that – there’s lots of evidence of our faculty members being SUCCESSFUL AT WHAT THEY WERE HIRED TO
DO. In contrast, there’s lots of evidence that top level administrators fail to do their jobs well; a
failure rate of above 50% for those in the cabinet level, and I’d say we’ve had a 100% failure rate
for the presidents’ selected in the last 20 years (2 spectacular failures, 1 a quiet-failure-that-lasted a
decade).
Scientists calculate that expertise takes about 10,000 hours of labor applied to the area in which expertise
is to be developed. By that rough measure, it’s likely that the Search Committee members that the
board is putting to gether will have nobody with expert knowledge of EMU or higher education generally
on it aside from the 2 faculty members, the one emeritus faculty, and the EMU administrator. Why
entrust such an important task to a body dominated by people lacking the relevant expertise required to make
the sound judgements? This is the key to normal presidential searches made up largely of faculty and Board
members together: Each learn from one another, with the legal authorities for the University (regents)
working closely with the group most involved in the daily work of the university’s core functions, the
faculty members.