Although UCLA has historically been headed by a white male,
national trends suggest an increase in minority and female
university chief executives, which may have implications for the
replacement of Chancellor Albert Carnesale.
Based on a study conducted by the American Council of Education,
in recent decades there has been an increase in the number of women
heading universities nationwide.
Brian Bridges, assistant professor of higher education
administration at George Washington University, said there has been
a 21 percent increase in female chancellors or presidents at 2,100
four-year universities in the past 20 years.
And while there is a growing number of female chancellors,
racial trends among university presidents nationally suggests a
slower rate of growth.
“If you look at the number of minority chancellors at
predominantly white institutions, there were less than 50 out of
2,100 four-year universities. Overall, most have white male
leadership,” Bridges said.
The momentum of female and minority chancellors in the
University of California system seems to echo this national
trend.
Currently, three out of ten chancellors system-wide are from a
minority background, and four chancellors are female.
In UC history, there have been a total of seven female
chancellors
system-wide, and “in the chancellor ranks with respect to
women today, (four) is more than we’ve ever had,” said
Ellen Switkes, assistant vice president of academic advancement at
the UC Office of the President.
According to Bridges, part of the reason there are few minority
chancellors and presidents nationwide stems from the fact that
there are few minority applicants vying for these positions to
begin with.
Though the trends Bridges referred to were national comparisons,
he specified that California school systems are setting a good
example of accepting diversity.
Bridges’ study also concluded that large public research
universities have been the least reluctant to hire minority
presidents.
UCOP officials and the selected search committee responsible for
interviewing applicants for the position of UCLA chancellor have
been working on the search for two months.
However, they are only responsible for reviewing applicants
filtered by a search firm.
The search firm, A.T. Kearney, advertises the available
position, but recruitment of highly ranked officials from other top
university institutions is a more likely method of acquiring viable
candidates, said Alberto Pimentel, vice president of A.T.
Kearney.
Pimentel also said he believes search firms are a necessity in
hiring because they act as a neutral middleman, reaching out to the
pool of all qualified candidates, including minorities and
women.
The work of the firm is in line with UC policy, which by law is
required to conduct a “good faith affirmative action”
strategy in the recruitment process.
This policy dictates that there must be active recruitment of
prospective candidates inclusive of minority groups.
However, “good faith affirmative action” is only in
respect to the search process, as race and gender cannot play a
role in the final selection.
“Each (chancellor search) is a tough, complicated and
time-consuming process, so nobody is going to take a step back and
say we haven’t had a minority for a while and slot that
position for a minority. It just doesn’t work like
that,” Switkes said.
“In the end, you just choose the best candidate,” he
added.
The chancellor search committee plans to meet for the second
time on Feb. 13 in Oakland to discuss the progress of the
search.
The meeting is closed to the press and the public.
The search committee plans to present their recommendation in
March to the UC Board of Regents, who will make the final
appointment.
The new chancellor will take office on July 1.