This is an important moment for Florida State University and its Board of Trustees, which is charged with selecting a new president from the finalists for the job.
More is at stake than who will lead the institution; this also is about what kind of place Florida State will become.
All indications suggest the trustees are ready to select former House speaker and current state Sen. John Thrasher, one-time chair of the state Republican Party who also chairs Gov. Rick Scott’s election campaign committee.
The search committee meets Monday to decide if any of the four finalists do not deserve to be forwarded to the trustees, which meets Tuesday to pick FSU’s next president.
The real question before the trustees begin is not with who, but what. That is, what is FSU really?
Is it simply a political prize to be awarded as spoils by victors in political elections? Let’s be honest: Who believes Sen. Thrasher would be considered a serious candidate were someone besides Rick Scott the governor?
Does FSU’s leader truly not need to embrace scientific principles or empirical evidence?
Will it simply be an athletic powerhouse, content to ride the laurels of football national championships?
Will it just be a slave to the cash flowing from corporate givers?
Or can it ever reach its potential as a top public university, doing important work to benefit the nation and humanity?
Sen. Thrasher has had a long and proud political career.
We mean no disrespect to Sen. Thrasher nor to diminish his accomplishments. He is simply the wrong person for this job.
We know we may be whistling into the wind, but we urge the trustees to put aside their loyalty to Sen. Thrasher, who doesn’t seem to be qualified on the basis of the job description.
We are bothered that as a potential president of a top-tier research institution, Sen. Thrasher could not even bring himself to divorce his political philosophy from the job he covets.
Asked about evolution, Sen. Thrasher talked about his religious beliefs, saying: “I have a great faith in my life that has guided me in my life in a lot of things I believe in.” The implication is that science and faith cannot co-exist.
Sen. Thrasher also declined to give a specific answer when asked about the science behind climate change, and then threatened to walk out of the room when two students giggled at his answers, a clear signal of the senator’s intolerance for disagreement.
Later, the senator said he was trying to send a message to the students, the message being he is not to be heckled, he said. The message seems to be clear: disagreement is not to be tolerated, let alone embraced, as must occur in academic life.
We have no doubt that should Sen. Thrasher be selected, life will go on at Florida State University. We also have no doubt that it will do so without some current members of the faculty, that some top-flight researchers may look elsewhere for work, as may students seeking a university dedicated to top academic and scientific standards.
There is no question that the selection of Sen. Thrasher would hurt the reputation of the university he professes to love. The job will have been won through the exercise of pure power politics, not a true vetting of the most qualified for the presidency.
We urge the trustees to truly think through the implications of what they are about to do.
