After months of trying to increase their involvement in choosing the next University of California president, students met Wednesday with the entire UC Board of Regents presidential selection committee.
“We were very pleased that we were able to meet with the entire committee,” said Louise Hendrickson, acting chair of the student advisory committee for the appointment of the next President of the UC, and acting president of the UC Student Association.
UC spokesman Trey Davis said the search committee also appreciated the conversation with and input from the student group.
Wednesday’s meeting follows an earlier attempt the regents had made to meet with the students on Sept. 20. Due to timing constraints at the original meeting, only two regents were able to sit for the full session.
Though the students had sent an official request to Regents Chairman Richard Blum on Oct. 30 for another meeting, the regents told the students during Wednesday’s meeting that they had not responded earlier because they had not been informed of the letter, according to D’Artagnan Scorza, student Regent-designate.
The letter emphasized the students’ commitment to work with the regents to preserve the security of the selection process by offering compromises, such as signing confidentiality agreements and submitting anonymous questionnaires for the candidates via student Regent Ben Allen. Scorza added that he and Allen had collaborated at length to help facilitate the second meeting.
“I think it did a lot to help smooth over communication conflicts between the regents and the students,” Allen said.
Hendrickson said she was unable to provide details about the meeting for reasons of confidentiality, but did say that the regents promised to respond soon to the students’ request for a greater role in the presidential selection process.
But, according to Michael Brown, chair of the UC academic senate and also a member of the selection committee, the regents initially declined the students’ request for a greater role in the selection process at the meeting, and he said he did not think the regents would break precedent by changing their position.
“I have the sense that the regents understandably feel it is their responsibility to be very protective of the confidentially of potential candidates,” Brown added. This was confirmed by Davis, who reiterated that the identification and assessment of the candidates is a confidential process.
The student representatives recently created a Web forum to encourage student feedback and participation in choosing the next UC president. Many of the postings indicate that the main concerns revolve around the high cost of a UC education and insufficient support for nontraditional students, such as those who are older, married or have children.
Davis said the committee will use a combination of selection criteria consistent with many of the suggestions from the various constituent groups.
“Anyone may submit questions and comments to the committee,” added Davis.
Brown said he believed the regents agreed with the students’ emphasis on the need to hire a president who understands the importance of affordability and diversity in higher education.
“Maybe that wasn’t featured as much in the criteria as it ought to be,” Brown said, adding that he believed the regents would modify the selection criteria to reflect those elements more strongly.
Hendrickson said she would wait to receive an update from the regents until the end of the upcoming Thanksgiving break.
“If we don’t hear back by then, we’ll reconvene to discuss our next move,” Hendrickson said.