Aftermath of Wednesday's Search Advisory Committee Meeting

There’s been a lot of press regarding the Search Advisory Committee’s decision Wednesday to only interview John Thrasher. A day later, House Representative Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda applied for the position as well, stating, “I don’t think the committee had the appropriate choices, so I decided to put myself up against John Thrasher…He’s a lawyer and I’m a lawyer; he’s a legislator and I’m also a legislator. But I have experience working in higher education.”[1]

However, one of the most striking articles about the search, in my opinion, was the one in the Gainesville Sun published May 23 titled, “Trustees Adjust Criteria for UF Presidential Search.”[2] It reads:

A distinguished academic career is the first and foremost quality the University of Florida board of trustees is looking for in its next president.

The board voted unanimously Friday to adopt an amended set of search criteria for the 12th president of the state's flagship university.

"Distinguished academic career" is right up there in the preamble, underscoring the board's commitment to finding someone who can lead UF into the top 10 of public research universities in the nation.

The adoption of the criteria also shows that UF is committed to a nationwide and international search to find the best candidate possible, trustees and UF officials said.

It continued (and here’s the kicker):

The committee members say they don't expect to follow the same path as Florida State University.

Wow. This really makes FSU look like a bad Florida political joke, no? The other preeminent university in the state saw the travesty that is the FSU Presidential Search process and voted to underscore the board’s commitment to academics, not politics.

This is the key. People keep asking me what I think of John Thrasher as the potential president. But it’s not really about Thrasher, is it? This is a perfect example of politics as usual in Florida. Politicians have usurped the process and are unabashed by it. To follow the political trail that led to the decision to interview only one political candidate with no academic experience (other than an undergraduate degree and a JD from FSU) makes one’s head spin.

I keep coming back to the notion of loyalty as a criterion for the president of a Research 1 university. Those who know me know I’m from Pittsburgh and a loyal Pittsburgh Steelers fan. Just because I’m a loyal Steelers fan who bleeds black and gold doesn’t make me qualified to be the coach of the team. No one can deny the love Senator Thrasher has for FSU, but does that qualify him to serve as the president of an institute of higher learning? 

As faculty members have said over and over again, to move into the top 25, it takes a leader with strong academic credentials. UF’s Board of Trustees gets it. Why doesn’t FSU’s board? Why isn’t the FSU board demanding multiple candidates, candidates who meet the criteria that the Search Advisory Committee agreed to—unanimously—at the April 23 meeting?

Perhaps we should ask them. You can contact all of the members of the BOT by clicking here: Send email to the BOT

Faculty members have contacted me to ask whether they should tell potential candidates to go ahead and apply. That is, is it worth their time to apply since all signs point to a preordained political candidate? My suggestion is for faculty members to nominate any academic leader who they think is qualified for the position, just as Senator Al Lawson, a member of the Search Advisory Committee, challenged faculty members to do at Wednesday’s meeting. Interestingly, Al Lawson is also a former state senator and is currently a paid FSU lobbyist. Thrasher is a current senator. Conflict of interest anyone?

Unfortunately, it looks like a nomination is all it takes to get an interview around here—that and strong political connections. This is the perception the rest of the world will have of FSU: a presidential search that smacks of flagrant political maneuvering rather than a fair, open, transparent search that selects the very best qualified candidates to interview.

But I refuse to believe that this is over. It looks hopeless, I know. And perhaps some faculty members are okay with the decision, so again, I’m not claiming to represent all views. But I am confident, based on the number of emails I’ve received and people I’ve talked to over the last few days, that there are lots of faculty and students across campus who are outraged and want to do something. So UFF-FSU is planning a meeting for all faculty next week. Details to come when I have them, but plan on Friday afternoon. I also realize that there are community members, parents, and alumni who are watching what’s going on and are just as outraged by the political takeover of the search process and what this means for FSU—and Florida in general--in terms of the university’s academic reputation as well as faculty retention and recruitment. If you are in the area, feel free to contact me at president@uff-fsu.org for more information.

From the email I've received, it is clear that disappointment and concern about this flawed search can be heard all across campus, no matter one’s political persuasion. People don’t like unfairness, or when the game appears (or is) rigged, or when a winner is predetermined, or the feeling of being duped or taken advantage of. Let’s let the politicians know that this highly unusual decision to only consider one candidate is unacceptable and that we want a new search and a search committee that includes more faculty and student representatives. A university is useless without faculty and students, so we should have a larger say regarding who we want as a leader than the Florida political establishment.

Oh, and FYI, the search firm that UF hired is the women-owned, Florida-based firm that FSU did not hire.