COLUMN: Selection Secrecy

From Dan Schorr's "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '93 From Dan Schorr's "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '93No matter which issue has become your personal battleground – ROTC on campus, bicycles on the Walk, freedom of speech, campus security, the alcohol policy, etc. – there is one area where all of our interests are at stake: the selection of the next president of the University. Who is making this momentous decision? Who has been granted this historic responsibility? Who has been consulted on which candidate will be the best for Penn? If you're an undergraduate, the odds are 4,719 to 1 that it's not you. To place this in perspective, you're more likely to get mugged on the now super-safe Locust Walk than to have any impact on the selection of the next president. Who are the candidates? Who are the individuals who will potentially lead our beloved University into the next century? Sorry, that's classified. Names of all candidates are confidential. Neither your tuition dollars nor your personal stake in this University will earn you an advance peek at our next president – hardly an ideal method of selecting a leader. The President Search Committee, the 19-member group which most campus organizations dream of influencing, consists of two undergraduates. The fate of undergraduate interests seems to be something that should be open to the general public, but, as in other recent moves, the University has driven home the point that Penn is surely not a democracy. These two undergraduates, Jun Bang and Sharon Molinoff, are doing a remarkable job representing their fellow students. They have organized information seminars for the University community so that it can voice its concerns to members of the committee. Yet, no matter how sincere the committee's outreach efforts are, they ultimately are confronted with their inevitable superficiality. At forums, who the candidates actually are is deemed irrelevant, and thus statements are limited to comments such as, "I want someone with a background in education," "I feel strong ideals are essential," and other generalities. The real responsibility, the evaluation of individual candidates, will never reach the general community. It will left to those people sitting in a smoke-filled room in College Hall. There are, of course, strong arguments as to why the next president should be hidden from you until he or she has already been granted the office. For instance, some say that exposing candidates to open forums will result in them being attacked before they ever take office. Well, can you think of a better time for intense scrutiny? Generally, people prefer to find out as much as possible about a person before he or she is given the power to significantly influence their lives. The main argument for confidentiality states that if candidates' names are released, they will be less likely to apply for the presidency. Someone's employers will look down on their attempt to find a new job, and thus their present status will be jeopardized. It's a good thing the leaders of the University aren't running the country. They might decide to pick the President of the United States by a closed committee. After all, Bill Clinton might have angered the citizens of Arkansas if he publicly sought the job. For argument's sake, let's assume that these fears are accurate. It is therefore sensible to have the committee work in secret reviewing the many applicants. But ultimately, the committee will choose finalists and submit these special few to the Board of Trustees. Who, at this point, should have access to these names? Who should be able to research the opinions, competency, dedication, and experience of the potential next president? Should you? Even when the Trustees are considering the two or three finalists, it has been deemed necessary to withhold these names from the public. Your input is unnecessary and irrelevant. When the finalists are chosen, when the search committee has finished its job, should general University scrutiny be deemed too excessive? Only when the whole population has access to a candidate, only when his or her background is researched, only when he or she is exposed to open question-and-answer forums, only when he or she is made accountable to those he or she will lead, will flaws be open for exposure and decried, while strengths will be recognized and praised. Now more than ever, general undergraduate input is essential. Because we are a private institution, constitutional rights that are taken for granted throughout the nation are debatable at Penn. The University is not bound by that yellowed piece of paper. Who decides what rights you have? Currently, Interim President Fagin is considering whether or not to suspend Section II of the University's Racial Harassment Code, the so-called "speech code." The decision regarding what you can and cannot say will be made by the president. When you consider that our next leader will have the power to moderate civility and limit verbal expression, how important does confidentiality seem to you? Will finalists have to take a stand on this and other important issues? We may never know. While community consultation might result in us losing a good candidate, secrecy promotes the likelihood of the acquisition of a bad one. Now the community is told to close its eyes and wait for the surprise: the person who will hold their quality of life, liberty, and education in their grasp. Not surprisingly, nothing short of an uproar will change the process. This is the time for students to condemn the process. Our founder, the instigator of revolution partly in response to non-representation, would be appalled at such a system of selecting a leader at his University. Or maybe the societal analogy fails. Perhaps we're just a private corporation, and the undergraduates are simply customers. But unlike most market transactions, the buyer in this case is not an active participant. Virtually unable to take his business elsewhere, he must blindly accept the new CEO and the practices he or she will implement. Our commitment has been made, and our hands are tied. Eventually, those included in the search process will continue their diligent work and select a new president. I'm sure that I speak for everyone when I say that, when our leader is chosen for us, I really hope that the committee and the Trustees do a good job. Because for now, hope is all we have. Dan Schorr is a junior English major from Valley Stream, New York. Behind Enemy Lines appears alternate Fridays.