Four provost candidates have come and gone. The final candidate will visit next Tuesday. And although the search committee has been extensive and thorough in trying to find the next Dan Fogel, a few problems exist with this search.
First, let’s define what the University is searching for. The provost and executive vice chancellor acts as the chief academic officer and the person responsible for most of the day-to-day University operations. The provost works with vice chancellors from all major areas of campus, ranging from Academic Affairs to Finance and Administrative Services. Therefore, the provost holds a highly influential position within the University. Sitting in the No. 2 position, the provost has a hand in most of LSU’s major decisions. When objectively looking at the job description, it’s shocking to realize how much impact this person can have. It’s also shocking to evaluate the amount of student input, or lack thereof, in the search. Two students serve on a search committee of 16, a definite unproportional representation of the almost 30,000 students in the University. Despite these students’ qualifications, one being a standout graduate student and the other a former Student Government president, more students should have active roles in this search.
The committee gives candidates a limited amount of interaction with students during the process. With the exception of one candidate, potential provosts have not even met SG representatives, the elected student voices.
The search committee does host public forums for candidates to meet students and faculty. But scheduling the forums during class time doesn’t encourage students to attend.
Therefore, even though the sessions were well-attended by faculty, they operated with a virtually nonexistent student voice. At the most recent forum, only one person asked a student-related question. Seeing as the provost will have a substantial effect on students, I don’t think one question accurately can gauge this person’s feelings toward student issues.
It’s frustrating from a student standpoint. And I’m sure the search committee must experience some frustration too. But apathy is not an excuse; it’s an explanation.
My other issue with the search, besides the lack of student input and involvement, is the choice of provost candidates. I don’t want to harp on minority issues in every column I write, but I think it’s more than appropriate in this situation.
As of fall 2002, the Office of Budget and Planning analyzed the instructional faculty according to race and gender. Of the 1,237 full-time faculty members, 1,038 of them are white. This means only 199 members are of another race such as Black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American. The numbers look even more bleak concerning gender. Males outnumber females in a 2 to 1 ratio in the full-time faculty area, according to the Budget and Planning Web site.
Even though the site does not analyze administrators specifically, The Reveille analyzed administrators’ race and gender. In looking at the chancellors, vice chancellors (assistant or associate) and vice provosts, women and minorities are underrepresented severely in the top level of University administration. Specifically, only four black administrators serve campus (three of those being male). And non-white, non-black administrators are essentially non-existent, with only one person representing other minorities. And, that’s just the racial and gender breakdown. The administration has a good deal of work to do before it accurately reflects segments of the student body.
I don’t want to sacrifice a quality candidate for an underqualified minority. But with such an extensive and lengthy search, it’s pathetic the University only could come up with five middle-aged, white candidates. This is a perfect time to diversify, but we’re not.
I’m glad two candidates are women. I think it’s vital for the administration to put individuals of many races and cultures in influential positions. With a minority in the provost spot, we would have a strong voice in influencing the development of campus diversity.
It might seem hypocritical for me to say these things, seeing as The Reveille is not the poster child for a diverse staff. But, we also hire in a period of two weeks, not 12 months, and without a search committee. And we’re also making steps in other ways to make up for this deficiency.
So, what’s next? I encourage students to get informed. Read articles on the candidates. Go to the forums. Talk to Sonora Nambiar and Patrick McCune, search committee student representatives. And as far as administrators and staff, I challenge you to be more diligent in integrating high-level campus positions with a stronger minority voice. Be cognisant that the University lags behind when it should be setting the example of how to deal with diversity.