The decision to limit a presidential search to six weeks and to one campus did nothing short of enrage some faculty and students. Thankfully, MSU administrators have a chance to redeem themselves.
It is our hope that in order to patch some university-wide holes, the administration gives actual credence to a "national search" when selecting our next permanent provost. Everything the administration does and doesn't do in this search will be excruciatingly and painstakingly tracked, documented and broadcast among faculty, students, staff and residents.
If the administration does anything foul under such scrutiny, they'll run up against yet another wave of faculty indignation. This is a situation that if given more fuel could border on a powder keg waiting to explode, if it wasn't already at such status.
If recent steps by the administration are indicators, adding another student representative to the search and rating committee by request and touting a national search, are any indication, then they might have learned their lesson. Heavy emphasis on that "might."
It is sad to expect bad hiring practices from MSU administrators, but The State News and many faculty are likely gearing up for more disappointment. The committee's representation of university population is prudent - five students, 12 faculty members, two deans or associate deans, an academic specialist and one support staff member. A group to represent the university at large would have good ideas about hiring criteria, and provide ample input on candidates.
Given that the provost is the boss of professors and department heads, ASMSU's request to put more students on the committee just makes sense. Students - undergraduate and graduate - need to be able to have a voice on the conditions their teachers will face.
This time around, the MSU Board of Trustees needs to let the committee do its job and not overly interfere by pushing its selection for interim provost, someone who will assume the position and will likely come from in-house. They need to be trusted to finish the task they were assigned, and won't throw a wrench into finding a stellar permanent provost.
The search committee cannot be idle and passive or allow trustees to bully them or override its decisions. Committee members need to stand up for what they know is right for the university's students and faculty. In addition to the search committee, trustees need to initiate public forums.
Since the university would like to have a permanent provost by fall 2005, it should use the time and truly focus the search across a national pool of candidates to find the person best suited for the job. Since this is another hiring situation in which time is not of the essence, any search less than thorough would be a failure.
Given what has happened in the past, everyone should tread lightly. Students and faculty need continued and vigilant skepticism of the administration until presidential and provost hiring processes match those found at other outstanding universities. The administration needs to prove to the students and faculty that they are once again trustworthy.
