In math class, we’re generally taught to show our work.
You can’t simply skip from the problem to the solution. Otherwise, the teacher would never know if the student understood the problem, cheated or just took a lucky guess.
Much like a struggling student, the UC Board of Regents, in selecting a new University of California president, decided to fill in an answer without showing its work. The clouded nomination process is exactly why the University of California Student Association released a resolution earlier this month calling for more student input and transparency in the nomination process.
As members of the public, we know the basic, outlined procedure by which the UC Board of Regents selects a new president. The Board of Regents appoints a special committee that meets with an assortment of officials and stakeholders in the UC system, including a Student Advisory Committee, an Alumni Advisory Committee and an Academic Advisory Committee. The regents’ committee, formally known as the Special Committee to Consider the Selection of a President, makes the final decision to nominate an individual for the post.
The framework for Janet Napolitano’s appointment to the UC’s top spot is clear. However, the decision-making and reasoning of the selection committee was conducted behind closed doors – committees such as the Student Advisory Committee were left out in the cold with no information about the field of candidates the regents considered.
The regents should move to accept the UCSA’s proposal to increase student input, and also expand the roles of other constituent groups such as staff and faculty in the selection process. To do so, the regents should release to each committee an organized report detailing the decision-making process and the names of the top three candidates, provided members of each group sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Each committee could then provide feedback on the suggested candidates and the vetting process.
In their resolution, the UCSA calls for additional seats to be added to the Student Advisory Committee, a part of the association that advises the selection of the presidential nominee.
Expanding the number of students involved in the process of selecting the president would broaden the diversity of perspectives available. But, it would fail to keep those students from being left out of the actual decision-making process as they were this time around.
When choosing people for high-profile jobs such as the UC president, the regents tend to keep the identity of the candidates private, even from student and faculty committees that are supposed to advise them.
For individuals like Napolitano who already inhabit sensitive administrative jobs, the idea of full transparency could deter them from consideration in the earliest stages. If Napolitano’s name had been leaked earlier, the ensuing media storm and professional backlash could have damaged her candidacy before the process began.
The UC could sidestep this publicity issue by only sharing sensitive information with select groups.
A report from the regents on their decision-making process and a disclosure of the top three presidential candidates would mark an important step in understanding how the regents’ vision for the UC either contradicts or falls in line with that of its students, staff and faculty.
If the regents intend to take the University in a direction that is at odds with those they represent, then we – as taxpaying, tuition-paying, fee-paying students – deserve a platform through which we can have an open discussion.
The delicacy of the situation calls for a balance between transparency and security. However, including certain student representatives in the selection process strikes a perfect medium, allowing for more input, but also keeping the names of candidates safe.
To continue to let the regents operate with impunity and secrecy may one day cost the University the trust of the public.