Monday, 2/24/97
Search for chancellor should be publicREGENTS:
Board must be held accountable;UC campuses need open access to
decision process
Barring unforeseen impediments, UCLA will have a new chancellor
on March 21. The Daily Bruin revealed the possible finalists for
the position, but reporters had to dig for it. And therein lies the
problem. Without media scrutiny, (if we had not found it, some
other paper would have) it is likely that there would have been
little or no public foreknowledge of the search committee’s
finalists.
The current process works something like this: A search
committee created to select the list of finalists makes
recommendations to UC President Richard Atkinson, who is solely
responsible for selecting one finalist (who, by the way, does not
have to come from the committee’s list). Then the finalist’s name
is sent back to the Board of Regents for final approval. The new
chancellor shows up for work following Charles Young’s departure in
June, and then we wait to see whether the Regents did the right
thing.
The issue boils down to a basic question. Do we want UCLA’s next
chancellor to land in our laps with his or her views and policies
hidden in a briefcase?
No, we want more access. We need to know what’s in that
briefcase ahead of time. The chancellor helps steer a course for UC
education, and it is important for students, faculty, and
administration to get some knowledge up front about the new
chief.
UC campuses are public institutions, and the appointment of a
new chancellor is an event of broad interest. For there to be any
accountability, the selection committee needs to disclose their
findings in a press release well in advance of the Regents’
deliberations. Also, if Atkinson comes up with his own finalist,
the public must be given adequate notice. Otherwise, the entire
process smacks of old-boy networking and back-room politics. This
is wholly inappropriate for an institution with widespread
community interests at stake.
This editorial is not intended as a gratuitous demonization of
the Board of Regents, but if they attempt, unwittingly or
otherwise, to steer our school in an unfavorable direction — one
that is contrary to university consensus — we should have a chance
for some say in the matter.
Some argue that opening the selection process will reduce the
number of top-choice candidates because many would shy from the
scrutiny. The argument, although lucid, just isn’t enough.
A UC chancellor holds a high-profile position. The role is
decisive and consequential. Anyone in this type of position should
be subject to scrutiny. Recent years have seen picket lines outside
of Charles Young’s home. It is a high pressure atmosphere. Anyone
timid about the scrutiny of an open selection process is a
questionable candidate to begin with.
Another argument is that, if the finalists are revealed, those
who are passed over would experience a sense of embarrassment and
lose credibility among colleagues. Our position is, if the
committee considers a candidate and places the candidate among a
list of finalists, the initial recognition will help more than it
will hurt.
It is naive to think the Board of Regents automatically has the
UC’s best interests in mind. Most Regents are gubernatorial
appointees and, because there is so little student representation,
their viewpoints are often diametrically opposed to student views.
While most Regents oppose the repeal of affirmative action,
Chancellor Young has openly supported such programs. Shouldn’t we
know what Young’s successor, as a representative of UCLA, has in
store for us? Or should we go quietly about our business,
maintaining that the Regents know what’s best?
Those wanting to get involved should write and phone the UC
President and Student Regent Jess Bravin, among other Regents.
Richard C. Atkinson
President of the University of California
300 Lakeside Dr. 22nd Fl.
Oakland, CA
94612-3550
(510) 987-9074
Jess M. Bravin
Boalt Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
(510) 642-5081