I’m still reeling a bit from today’s meeting. It was so surreal:
Public comment after public comment raised concerns about Senator Thrasher’s lack of qualifications based on his interview, his CV, his voting record, and the like (I should note that one law student and three self-identified sorority students spoke in favor of Thrasher’s candidacy). Almost all of the speakers noted that the three academics have—and even exceed—the stated qualifications.
The headhunter, Mr. Pimentel, reported the results of the surveys, including the fact that 87% of the survey respondents rated Thrasher as below average or not qualified--compare that to the 92% who rated Dr. Wheatly as above average or excellent, the 88% who rated Dr. Martin as above average or excellent, or the 74% who rated Dr. Marchase as above average or excellent.
The PSAC Chair, Ed Burr, said that concerns were raised last time about a motion being made too quickly (thus, many people didn’t have the opportunity to speak), so he asked that the members refrain from doing so, yet former Senator Lawson proceeded to make a motion too quickly (so that discussion was again limited).
Faculty members and students on the PSAC reiterated that the campus feedback clearly showed that Thrasher does not have the qualifications necessary, yet the politicians and lobbyists and financial interests ignored the data and spoke in favor of his candidacy, again, despite the overwhelming evidence.
And despite the survey results (a survey, I should note, that was approved by the powers that be), despite the overwhelming number of public comments that raised serious questions about Thrasher’s candidacy, and despite the significant concerns raised by the students and faculty on the PSAC (for example, Professor Eric Walker said it would be “professional malpractice” to forward Thrasher’s name), the politicos and financial interests outnumbered the faculty and students, demonstrating loud and clear that this is all about political cronyism.
It is truly a travesty that a person with so few qualifications is actually being considered alongside infinitely more qualified academic candidates. His supporters call the faculty and students who are speaking at the meetings political, but it is the Thrasher supporters who made this a political left-right fight, for we have consistently noted that Thrasher does not meet the stated qualifications required by the criteria set forth by the PSAC. I wouldn’t care if Thrasher was the most liberal person in all of the US. Based on the PSAC's own criteria, he is not qualified. It’s that simple. Like I said in my comments, it would be like appointing a fire chief who has never been a fire-fighter. Experience absolutely matters.
Despite the rhetoric, loving the institution is not a qualification for being president. No one doubts that Thrasher is a devoted alumnus. However, there’s no evidence that Thrasher can increase funding, especially if you look at his voting record regarding higher education budgets. Further, it is illegal for him to lobby for funding from the legislature anyway due to an ethics law that prohibits it for two years after someone leaves the legislature (though Rep. Jimmy Patronis—who is not a lawyer as Gary Fineout pointed out—explained the ways one can get around that law). His responses to questions at his forums demonstrated that he doesn’t believe in science, which is a flashing neon sign that we should question his ability to lead a research one institution. He would not be considered a candidate anywhere else in the nation, according to Pimentel, and he doesn’t have the higher education experience as a teacher, researcher or administrator that is essential to leading a university. Pimentel also raised concerns about Thrasher and shared governance, which is another huge red flag. It was obvious from Thrasher’s interview that he does not like being questioned and finds a laugh “heckling” to the point of angrily threatening to leave an interview.
And perhaps most importantly, the campus spoke, but was ignored.
Please take a look at my posts about the other candidates and look at the survey results for each of the candidates. I’m afraid our focus—mine included—on Thrasher is not fair to the other candidates who are obviously highly qualified and ready to lead an institution of higher education.
The BOT interviews begin at 8 tomorrow, and the general meeting of the BOT begins no earlier than 2:15 according to the presidentialsearch.fsu.edu site. The BOT general meeting will begin with comments, and then the BOT will decide who will be the next president. I sure hope that everyone who can will attend—let the BOT know who you think is the most qualified candidate to lead our university.
