I just finished reading this article by Gary Fineout: http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268748/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=cmpO7HlI
So if I’m reading this right, the fix was in and still is in, eh? As I’ve said before, I had heard that Thrasher had been meeting individually with Trustees and PSAC members, which I personally find problematic because most presidential candidates—i.e., academics--do not have the influence or the gumption to try to manipulate the process. And others have said that by insisting that there are three candidates, some members of the BOT are betting on Thrasher being one of those three candidates rather than being the ONLY candidate, and being the only candidate certainly looks bad, as the PSAC and BOT have seen.
And let me remind everyone why we had such weak candidate pool--there was NO DEADLINE and an extremely problematic ad that showed that the university's priority was provincialism, not academics.
But yes, I suppose this search can still be called a sham because the search committee has yet to be reconstituted to include greater representation of faculty, students and staff—those who are directly affected by the daily decisions made by the FSU administration. And the BOT has not made a commitment to searching for a distinguished academic with higher education leadership experience, even though the other preeminent university in this state has made such a commitment in its search for its next president.
A search committee with as many politicians and business people as the PSAC has still makes little sense to me. Are we a political institution? Are we a corporation? Or are we an institute of higher learning that is committed to academic excellence? If we want to reach the top 25, we need to start thinking like a top 25 university, not as an extension of the Capitol or of increased corporatization and privatization. We need a strong president with academic credentials who understands the academy—where it has been and where it is going—in order to understand how best to work with the many constituencies the university has, including potential donors and legislators. To hire someone exclusively as a fundraiser is short-sighted and will likely be detrimental in terms of the strides this university made under President Barron.
