Thursday, February 6, 1997
CHANCELLOR:
Debate continues in whether selection process should be public
or privateBy Patrick Kerkstra
Daily Bruin Senior Staff
When Chancellor Charles Young announced his retirement last
February, the president of the American Council on Education said
UCLA was losing "one of the most admired and respected figures in
higher education."
Politicians, business leaders and education experts alike
praised the chancellor. They gave Young credit for making UCLA one
of the nation’s preeminent public universities and a dynamic force
in the cultural and educational landscape of Los Angeles and
California.
Now, just short of a year after Young’s announcement, a small,
select group of individuals is advising the University of
California’s leadership on who should shoulder the daunting task of
taking over where Young leaves off this June.
UCLA’s chancellor is responsible for managing or overseeing
nearly all aspects of the university. Young has been instrumental
in fighting to maintain diversity in admissions, expanding the
university’s role to reach beyond campus concerns and ensure UCLA’s
status as a world-class research institution.
But complicating the already difficult process of finding
someone to fill that role is a growing debate over the
appropriateness of choosing such an undeniably important public
figure in an entirely closed and private manner.
Those who defend the need for secrecy in selecting public
university leaders say that a confidential search is essential to
attracting top-flight talent at other schools. Advocates of a more
open process argue that it is inappropriate and inefficient to
select so public a leader in private.
"I don’t see how a system based on rumor and innuendo serves the
public interest better then one based on honesty and
forthrightness," said Student Regent Jess Bravin. "And the system
we are pursuing now is designed to give us the worst of both
worlds. We have none of the benefits of an open process, and as
many leaks as the Titanic  which makes confidentiality
impossible," Bravin said.
Bravin and other student leaders in the UC feel that a more open
selection would encourage greater student and community interest in
a process and outcome that will ultimately affect those groups most
directly.
"I do recognize the university’s dilemma in wanting to keep the
search process private for the candidate’s sake," said UC Student
Association Executive Director Kimi Lee. "But for the student’s
sake, having a more open process is desirable."
However, most university officials, faculty members and other
education experts feel that the danger of not being able to attract
top candidates wary of publicity outweighs the benefits of an open
process.
"Unfortunately, opening up the process would make it almost
impossible for it to work," said chemistry-biochemistry Professor
Christopher Foote, who is a member of the UCLA search
committee.
"People who have important and sensitive jobs can’t afford to
publicly associate with another university looking for a new
chancellor," agreed Pat Callan, director of the California Higher
Education Policy Center.
Callan, who stressed that he feels most university business
should be conducted publicly, said that the risk for the most
desirable of candidates is just too high in an open process.
"The kind of people a school like UCLA is trying to recruit are
in sensitive positions, and opening the process up could prevent
top candidates from applying," Callan continued.
But both Lee and Bravin counter that the best applicants for a
position as demanding as UCLA chancellor should not shy away from
the glare of public attention.
"This is a hot-seat job. We don’t want people who are so timid
that the fact that their name might be published would give them
pause," Bravin said.
Terry Colvin, spokesman for the UC president’s office, stressed
that the responsibility for choosing new chancellors lies primarily
with the president himself, not the public or even the search
committees.
"This committee meets at the pleasure of the president. From the
president’s end, he is free to do whatever he likes with the
committee’s assessments. He can rely on them completely, or throw
them out. He can start over, and he can come up with names on his
own," Colvin said.
It is precisely this potential for complete control of the
process by the president and the regents that disturbs student
leaders most.
"This institution doesn’t belong to me, the other regents, the
faculty or even the students," Bravin said. "It belongs to the
state’s citizens."
"We should join the rest of the United States and start
practicing open governance."