Penn State faculty express concerns over search for new president, want greater role in selection
Penn State’s next university president won’t be chosen for many more months, but faculty have already repeatedly shared concerns that they’re not involved enough in the selection process.
This month alone, more than 700 people signed an online petition demanding a greater voice for faculty, staff and students. A professor, who also organized the petition, addressed concerns head-on during the public comment portion of the most recent board of trustees meeting. And Penn State’s faculty senate voted 122-4 in favor of sending a letter to the BOT, urging it to reconsider its current selection committee setup. (The BOT, and not the university administration, is tasked with choosing the manner in which the next president is selected.)
“I don’t think that it is a good idea to entrust the search to a committee largely devoid of academic input,” said Mary Beth Oliver, the petition organizer and a media studies professor. “And by ‘input,’ I don’t mean just simply sharing opinions. I mean having a role in crafting a shortlist of candidates for the new president.”
New approach to presidential search process
At the heart of the controversy is the makeup of the Presidential Recruitment and Selection Committee, which will essentially devise a shortlist of candidates to replace President Eric Barron, who is set to retire at the end of his contract in June 2022. That 19-member selection committee includes three faculty members — it originally had two — and an undergraduate student.
During the 2013 presidential selection process, which many faculty favor over the current setup, two committees worked side-by-side and shared similar duties. One 18-member committee consisted of nine faculty members.
So why the change? According to BOT office director Shannon Harvey, who shared a written statement with the Centre Daily Times on behalf of chairman Matthew Schuyler, the 2013 setup was considered. But, according to Schuyler’s statement, an internal post-search review — finished in 2015 — showed some presidential candidates expressed concerns about the old process. And the BOT’s current search firm partner, Spencer Stuart, has lauded the current approach.
“We are engaged with the faculty senate leadership and greatly value their input, and will continue to seek it as the process unfolds,” the statement read.
Schuyler and others have countered some of the faculty’s criticism by noting faculty and students have played a critical role in “Next Gen Penn State,” where stakeholders share what they’re looking for in the next president. That means roundtables, discussions, surveys and online comments — all overseen by a 47-member advisory group, which includes more faculty, in addition to the likes of football coach James Franklin and State College mayor Ron Filippelli.
But many faculty say that’s not nearly enough, as that group wields no actual power in choosing presidential candidates. Michelle Rodino-Colocino, chapter president of the American Association of University Professors, pointed out that precedent without power hasn’t exactly benefited faculty, or students.
Take a look at the COVID-19 vaccine, for example. Both the faculty senate and University Park’s undergraduate student government have passed resolutions asking for such vaccines to be required. (Even community leaders outside the university have made similar requests.) But the university has declined to take that approach — so, Rodino-Colocino asked, what’s stopping the BOT’s presidential selection committee from following a similar path, listening and going in another direction?
“It’s about outcomes and processes,” Rodino-Colocino said. “So, as a faculty member and the chapter president of the AAUP, I want the outcome to be our next president of Penn State has academic leadership experience and has the kind of experience to be prepared to lead Penn State. ... But the process also matters because involving faculty in selecting the president matters.”
Questions remain with search set to launch
Several faculty members, including Rodino-Colocino, have pointed to Iowa as a cautionary tale when it comes to university presidential searches. In 2015, Iowa’s Board of Regents unanimously named Bruce Harreld as its next president with virtually no input from faculty. He received several no-confidence votes before even taking office.
Harreld had no significant academic experience — but plenty of big-business experience as a consultant. Iowa professor Kembrew McLeod penned a piece in Slate shortly thereafter that said Harreld had “no experience, no ideas, and flubbed his own résumé.” The AAUP censured Iowa, removing that status only when it changed the way it conducted presidential searches.
No. 1 on Iowa’s list of best practices now? “Faculty representation on search committee.” (Harreld abruptly retired earlier this year, before his contract expired in 2023, forfeiting $2.33 million. He was replaced by Barbara Wilson, who received 80% approval from a campus survey prior to her selection.)
“We do want to make the point that the search process going forward can only benefit from — and needs — the greater inclusiveness and representation, academically, that we propose,” said Caroline D. Eckhardt, a member of Penn State’s faculty senate and director of the School of Global Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.
Bonj Szczygiel, chair of the faculty senate, told the CDT that board members have reached out to the faculty senate since the letter. She characterized such communications as “positive.”
Still, it’s not known what — if any — changes might be made in the future. A report from the Next Gen group is expected to be publicly released in early June, around the same time a job description will be published and the actual search will commence.
The process for reviewing and selecting a final candidate has not yet been determined.
“We recognize that the appointment of the president is the most important responsibility we have as a governing board of Penn State,” Schuyler said during this month’s earlier BOT meeting. “We also recognize our university has a long and storied tradition of shared governance — and we respect the importance of that relationship.”
