LSU’s secret search for President F. King Alexander resulted in multiple lawsuits, a “no confidence” resolution from the Faculty Senate and a storm of publicity that’s only now beginning to die down. But nearly 2,000 miles away, the search for Alexander’s replacement at his former university has begun, and similar questions are only starting to brew.
The hunt to find California State University, Long Beach’s new president shares many controversial characteristics that LSU’s search for Alexander featured: a private search firm, committees that will privately make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees about who to hire and no policy that insists finalists visit campus or be named publicly before being selected.
The administrative side of the search isn’t the only part that looks familiar to LSU’s — a movement of faculty, staff and students demanding a more transparent search has already formed. Professors have held town hall meetings to stress the importance of an open search and the student newspaper has pled with administrators for transparency as well.
Alexander still defends LSU’s closed search that resulted in his selection. He said closed searches are better for job-seeking chancellors and presidents because the candidates could lose support from constituents and hamper their fundraising abilities if it looks as though they want to leave their university. He also supports CSULB having a closed search for his replacement.
But Alexander didn’t always feel that way. In 2005, when he left his position as president of Murray State University, he advised the school to hold an open search for his replacement.
“It’s important that the faculty talk to these people,” he said then, according to the written minutes from a Murray State University Board of Regents meeting. “It’s important that the students get to know these people and it’s important that the administrative staff gets to hear the philosophy these candidates may have about higher education.”
THE BACKLASH BEGINS
The CSU System used to have a policy that said finalists for president jobs must visit the campus before securing the title. The Board of Trustees eliminated that requirement in 2011, shortly after the Director of CSULB’s Center for First Amendment Studies Craig Smith stepped down from the board.
“The faculty and students really need to rattle some cages over this,” Smith said.
CSULB Interim President Donald Para and CSU Spokesman Mike Uhlenkamp acknowledged the backlash on campus since the search geared up, but both stood by the closed search method. CSULB is paying for its private search firm with state funds but no student fees, according to Para.
“Any campus that has a closed search, there’s going to be backlash,” Para said, noting that closed searches yield better applicant pools. “It’s unfortunate, but I think it’s the best way.”
Michael Poliakoff, vice president of policy for the Washington, D.C.-based American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said state universities need to use their power and reputation to negotiate instead of being deferential to candidates who want privacy.
“It is typically for the advantage of the candidate rather than the institution,” Poliakoff told The Patriot-News about closed searches in July. “A confident and great institution should really be setting its own terms rather than deferring to candidates who understandably want to spare themselves the embarrassment of possibly being a finalist and not getting a final offer.”
One of the people making the most noise at CSULB over the closed search is Brian Lane, a film and electronic arts professor who has been a longtime critic of CSULB’s administration. Lane has hosted a couple of town hall-style meetings where he’s asked prospective candidates to come forward openly. He’s also started a petition for a more transparent search.
The CSULB Academic Senate also passed a resolution last month calling on the university to have an open search. The senators hope “the incoming president of CSULB will of course ultimately be judged not on the procedures by which he or she was selected but on his or her performance as president,” according to the resolution.
Neither Lane nor Smith buy the argument that sitting presidents will lose their clout if they’re announced as finalists for another position. Lane compared the idea to a presidential election, saying the loser does not have to end his career in politics just because people know he lost a presidential bid.
“Are we telling students only take a class where you know you can get an A? Isn’t that the message?” Lane said. “It’s so antithetical to our way of life.”
Smith said it doesn’t make sense for presidential finalists not to visit schools when finalists for lower positions, like provosts and deans, are named publicly and visit campuses.
THE VETTING PROCESS
Another concern of Smith’s and Lane’s is that applicants are not truly vetted until they are publicly announced as finalists. If candidates aren’t publicly announced, they won’t be investigated as much, Smith and Lane said.
Smith said he’s seen searches in the past where once applicants were named finalists, it came out that they had felonies on their records. More secrets surface when the names are publicly announced because people who have formerly worked with the finalists can vouch for their character and competence, he said.
The vetting problem has driven Lane to use a blog called “Thug” to show the importance of scrutinizing applicants.
LSU kept its background checks of Alexander under locks, but Lane has used “Thug” to accuse Alexander of a variety of transgressions that may have come to light earlier if his name were announced publicly. Lane said LSU’s backlash inspired him.
“It armed us … by saying, look, look what’s going on and look at how the faculty at LSU stood up and look at how the reporters at LSU stood up, and we need to do the same,” Lane said.
But Alexander said “Thug” is not an example of vetting — the site is vindictive and vengeful and shows how people can use the Internet against their enemies, he said.
“There are so many accusations — it’s illogical, it doesn’t make sense,” Alexander said. “There’s no one in Long Beach that would substantiate a word of it.”
LOOKING FOR A LEADER
CSULB’s search committees have held one open forum, but no more are planned. From here on, the search will remain closed unless the candidates say they want their names publicly announced.
Smith said this way of searching for a leader marginalizes students, faculty and staff. The Sacramento Bee called on the CSU System in an editorial last May to reinstate mandatory campus visits for presidential finalists.
Alexander said he’s recently discussed what kind of presidential candidates CSULB should be looking for and had two main criteria. First, find someone who loves students, he said.
He laughed a bit at his second requirement — finding someone who isn’t looking to retire soon because the beaches in California are tempting.
The CSULB search process should span five to six months, and the university’s leaders hope to have a new president by the beginning of next year.
“The faculty and students really need to rattle some cages over this.”