It’s not very hard to justify the need for student input in the hiring process for the next University of California president.
It seems obvious that in an environment where enrollment is increasing, admissions standards are tightening, fees are skyrocketing, and UCLA is losing diversity, students should at least know the incoming president’s stance on these issues.
The Student Advisory Committee, created to advise in the hiring process for the next UC president, is complaining that it is not receiving the appropriate respect from the UC Office of the President and the Board of Regents.
Apparently, all that the committee will be able to contribute to the hiring process is to meet the candidate who is nominated for the position.
The committee might not even be able to ask this person questions.
According to Oiyan Poon, the president of the UC Student Association, the committee was told that it would be able to meet and ask questions of several candidates before a nominee is forwarded to the regents for final approval.
Apparently that offer, if it was made, has been revoked.
D’Artagnan Scorza, the student regent designate, said the language in the UC policy defining the role of the committee in the selection process needs to be more detailed.
The lack of job definition may be the source of confusion according to Scorza.
Likewise, the university said the committee is not entitled to so much input, which may technically be true according to this policy, but this doesn’t need to turn into a he-said-she-said child’s game.
Apparently the UC sees no need to reexamine the role of a student committee in this process, and, if in fact what it told Poon and the members of the advisory committee is true, the UC is going back on its word.
The primary mission of this university is to educate the students who attend. We believe it does a good job of that.
It is a safe assertion to make that some of our best might be qualified enough to simply ask questions of a few candidates, especially since students hold large stakes in the UC education system.
And in a time when the UC is being heavily criticized for its lack of transparency and students are increasingly active in their pursuit of lower fees and a more accessible education, it is a slap in the face for all UC students that we would be so excluded from the process.
Regardless of what the committee is technically allowed to contribute, the university should make a good-faith effort to be more inclusive of student opinion.
A potential leader of one of the most influential leaders within the realm of higher education should be questioned and reviewed with at least a few student voices.
The UC operates on a premise of “shared governance,” which, in addition to the formalized senate system for faculty governance, includes several student positions on key committees.
But shared governance isn’t just supposed to be about a few token student positions with relatively little power. The UC should, for the most part, be taking student opinion into account when faced with major decisions.
The UC president has a great deal of power to impact the quality of a UC education, and it is important that student issues are addressed ““ or at least brought up ““ during the searching and hiring processes.
The fact that the UC feels the need to stonewall student opinion is alarming and unfortunate, and it needs to be addressed immediately.