Students demanded involvement in the search for the next University of California president last Tuesday, when campus representatives sent a letter to UC Board of Regents Chairman Richard Blum.
This continues a controversy that began Oct. 12, when the Student Advisory Committee approached other advisory groups for the appointment of the next UC president by asking them to support their request for greater involvement.
The students have yet to receive a response to their letter because Blum is currently out of the country and has yet to read it, UC spokesman Trey Davis said.
The student representatives also created a Web forum to encourage student feedback and participation in choosing the next UC president, said Oiyan Poon, chair of the Student Advisory Committee.
Students have listed many of their concerns on the Web site, including what they say is the high cost of a UC education and insufficient support for nontraditional students, such as those who are older, married or have children.
The Web forum was created after what Poon called a “disappointing” September meeting with the regents, at which the students gave their input regarding selection criteria for the next UC president.
“The students feel their voice, at this stage, is absent,” said Michael Brown, chair of the UC Academic Senate.
Because the September meeting started two hours late, the students were only able to have a full session with two regents, said Na’Shaun Neal, UCLA’s student representative to the Student Advisory Committee.
But no disrespect was intended, Brown said, adding that the fact that even two regents stayed behind to meet with the students was a sign of care and concern.
Opinions differ regarding interpretation of the policy on consultation with constituent groups for the appointment of the president of the university, the regents’ policy states that consultation is for the purpose of “presenting the nominee or nominees to members of the groups at the conclusion of the search.”
Based on the students’ understanding of the policy, they believe their committee is allowed to meet with all final nominees, they wrote in their letter to Blum.
But the regents are within their rights to only introduce the final nominee at the conclusion of the search, Davis said in a previous interview.
“It’s vague languaging,” said Brown of the current policy. “It doesn’t necessarily say that they are allowed (to meet with all the nominees) or not.”
Student Regent-designate D’Artagnan Scorza said if the policy leads to silencing of the student voice, then he believes it needs to be revised.
“What we need here is clarity,” Scorza said, adding that he plans to work with student Regent Ben Allen to find a way to both support the UC and the needs of the students.
Brown said the primary issue with student involvement in the selection process is the regents’ desire to offer confidentiality to presidential candidates.
“Just to be considered in a public way damages candidates’ abilities to effectively do their jobs at their own institutions,” said Brown.
The student representatives addressed this concern in their letter to Blum, offering compromises such as signing confidentiality agreements and submitting anonymous questionnaires for the candidates via Allen.
Poon said the student committee is willing to work with the regents on a compromise that preserves the integrity of the selection process.
Neal said concerns about students’ abilities to maintain confidentiality are unfounded, and he challenged the UC to point to a time when student participation led to a breach in security.
“I feel that’s a very patronizing view of students,” Neal said.