Last week, we reported on the Regents’ proposal that head-hunting search firms play an even greater role in the selection of Chancellors–at the expense of faculty input, already limited to a screening function. The Report of the Regents’ Working Group elicited strong criticism from faculty, including a letter from 20 past leaders of the (system-wide) Academic Senate, arguing that the proposed search guidelines violate the principle of shared governance and will be detrimental to the university We asked Elizabeth Berry, former Chair of the History Department, to assess the Regents’ report on the basis of her own experience participating in such searches. You can read her detailed response here. She concludes as follows:
“The trust of the Working Group in head hunters suggests innocence about the role they have played in the past and the complexity of their financial concerns. It also suggests distrust of the faculty members who carry out the university’s mission and typically serve for decades. The logic is baffling. As is a background theme in the 17 recommendations-that the Regents desire a larger role in leadership decisions. They already have the power of decision and, in my experience, engage profoundly in the many meetings preceding it. They alone, of course, interview finalists and control the very composition of the roster. Substituting head hunters for AACs [Academic Advisory Committees] as screeners is a path not toward greater authority over the appointment process, already complete, but marginalization of the people who teach UC students and serve under officials chosen by the Regents. Head hunters do neither.”
As far as we have been able to determine, the application process is still mediated by headhunters, who supply the bulk of nominees. They are then screened by members of the faculty AAC who, we understand, are not allowed to contact anyone with knowledge of them (colleagues, deputies, potential referees) to protect the confidentiality of “candidates” who may not even be interested in the position.The whole process is already absurdly corporate, and now the Regents are proposing to make it more so. Under cover of an unsubstantiated claim that head hunters would produce a more diverse pool of (undeclared) “candidates”, the Regents are engaged in consolidating their own power, without regard to the vital role of faculty in sustaining academic excellence.
Michael Burawoy and Celeste Langan for the Board of the Berkeley Faculty Association.