The search for Furman’s next president has officially begun. This past week, the presidential search committee — a body consisting of trustees, three professors, one student, and various members of the administration — met for the first time.
The trustees and the search committee are moving forward with the search process, despite the expressed wishes of a majority of faculty members surveyed by the Faculty Administrative Liaison Committee this summer, who were in favor of delaying the process. Despite this incongruity, the survey of the faculty and the subsequent report presented to the search committee suggests that the board of trustees (and by extension the search committee) is interested in incorporating various perspectives into their decision-making process. While the faculty have expressed the preference for the presidential search to be delayed, this expression perhaps belies a deeper concern that the search will occur behind closed doors and exclusively through outside consultants, a quick process unaccountable to the faculty and larger Furman community. Although the search will commence immediately, the committee’s consideration of the faculty survey is a sign that they are attempting to understand what the faculty are looking for in a new president and how the faculty would like the search to proceed.
In the upcoming weeks there will be three forums in which the presidential search committee will hear from students and faculty about the type of person they want as university president and in extension what the faculty and students see as the future and goals of Furman university. Questions remain about how these forums will be conducted, and what impact they will have on the larger search procedures. Are these forums simply informal surveys of general opinions, or will the forums take the form of constructive dialogues, with both committee members and members of the larger Furman community? What information will students and faculty provide to the search committee, and what information will the committee reveal in return? Optimally, the forums scheduled about two weeks from now will give students and faculty the opportunity to interact with the search committee and will be the beginning of an inclusive and transparent process.
The trustees and the Search Committee are ultimately the bodies charged with selecting the next university president and determining general university policy for years to come, but those decisions impact students and faculty in direct and immediate ways, and students and faculty deserve to have their voices heard and questions answered throughout the search, not simply at its outset.
Conducting a search for a new president — identifying and interviewing applicants, exploring options, maintaining confidentiality, and ultimately making a definitive decision for the university — is a delicate and complex endeavor. However, complexity and difficulty are no excuse for a lack of a communication. The more input students and faculty are allowed in the process, the better the search committee will be able to select the candidate best equipped to lead the university.
The search committee can meet these conditions without compromising the integrity and confidentiality of the process. Although the committee cannot release the names of the applicants, the committee could update students, faculty, and alumni on the characteristics of candidates being considered throughout the process. Most importantly, the search committee should offer indications that input from faculty and students is having an effect on the search process. This accountability could take the form of reports communicating how the search is progressing, or subsequent forums occurring throughout the year in which the committee continues to offer updates and the students and faculty continue to offer feedback. Instead of simply identifying what qualities and characteristics students and faculty consider most important at the beginning of the search and using that indefinite picture as a guide, the committee should periodically return to the Furman community and hold subsequent forums to refine and review the picture as the committee fills in more details. The worst of all possible alternatives would be disconnected silence, separating the search committee from the life of the institution that the new president would be expected to lead.
The presidential search is not and should not be a democratic election, and the search committee is required to manage a variety of interests in completing their assigned job. The Furman community should respect the difficulty of the committee’s task, and accept that the individual eventually selected may not fulfill every ideal expectation. However, the committee should also respect the larger Furman community by allowing for as much transparency as the reality of the enterprise permits. Even though they have been been entrusted with the power of the selecting the new president, the search committee should still be accountable for explaining and justifying that decision.
The presidential search is moving forward, but the faculty survey and forums suggests that the Presidential Search Committee is interested in input from the faculty and is willing to engage directly with members of the Furman community. These shows of good faith should be the defining beginnings of an honest, open process.
