The LSU Board of Supervisors unanimously selected New Mexico State University President Michael Martin to be LSU’s new chancellor Thursday, acting on the recommendations of the Chancellor Search Committee, student leaders and LSU System President John Lombardi. Martin appears to be a well-qualified candidate. His professional work in the academic sphere – which began as a graduate teaching assistant in 1970 – deals exclusively in land-grant universities like LSU. He has a doctorate in applied economics, and his academic resume stretches across 19 pages. Martin’s most recent job at NMSU displays experience in the top administrative position at a university which can be considered in many ways similar to LSU. Therefore it is unfortunate that his selection was marred by a suspiciously opaque process. On Jan. 16, the day former Chancellor Sean O’Keefe announced his resignation, Lombardi held a news conference outlining his plans for finding a new chancellor. Speed appeared to be a paramount concern: Lombardi desired a finalized list of candidates before the end of the spring semester and wanted the transition to be completed by fall 2008. Lombardi assembled a Chancellor Search Committee that first met in early March, deciding to employ R. William Funk and Associates, a Dallas-based search firm, to generate a list of possible candidates. The firm produced an initial list in mid-March, and within a week the Committee agreed to begin background checks on the two frontrunners: Jon Whitmore (president of Texas Tech University) and Janie Fouke (provost and senior vice president at the University of Florida). On May 15, when the Committee met to discuss the results of these background checks, an amazing thing happened. The Committee rejected all previously considered candidates and invited newcomer Martin – apparently out of the blue. In fact, after Martin’s May 20 meeting with the LSU Faculty Senate, Senate President Kevin Cope issued a statement critical of the search process. Cope’s report said it “lacked transparency and due deliberation,” and failed to “generate a list of candidates.” Is it mere coincidence Martin just happens to have previous experience with Lombardi – the man who Board members said they hired in order to force out O’Keefe? Furthermore, does it even matter whether Martin was hand-picked by Lombardi? It wouldn’t if Martin’s resume was flawless. But few are. Recent events at NMSU’s campus cast Martin in a less-than-favorable light. The Associated Press reported two tenure-track professors at NMSU, both minorities, were denied contract renewal in early March. The pair, a married couple, claimed this denial came after months of sexual and racial harassment. Though Martin was not directly implicated in this, his reaction was questionable. He distanced himself from the incident and refused to take a position on the issue. A related student protest – during which students gathered more than 500 signatures against NMSU – was dismissed by Martin as “a sewing circle.” Not exactly supportive of the students’ voice. There is no doubt Martin is a capable administrator with a great breadth of academic experience. It remains unclear, however, whether he was the best available candidate. Because the search process was fast-tracked – because none of the other candidates even stepped foot on this campus – the LSU community will never know if Martin was the best choice. Regardless, Martin is going to be our next chancellor. This Board hopes he will prove an exceptional leader that will serve as a great boon to all members of the University community, but only time will tell. We are watching.
—-Contact the Editorial Board at [email protected]