EDITORIAL: Openness, the best policy

Michigan's presidentialMichigan's presidentialsearch provides aMichigan's presidentialsearch provides aworkable model forMichigan's presidentialsearch provides aworkable model forPenn, which couldMichigan's presidentialsearch provides aworkable model forPenn, which couldsoon face searches ofMichigan's presidentialsearch provides aworkable model forPenn, which couldsoon face searches ofsimilar magnitude. One of these finalists, as most everyone on campus now knows, is Provost Stanley Chodorow. And while the court's decision prompted one finalist to withdraw from the selection process, the other four -- including Chodorow -- have now been profiled in Detroit-area newspapers. The reaction and comments from colleagues that have already made their way into the public record as a result have no doubt equipped Michigan's Regents with more facts and opinions on which to base their ultimate decision. In addition, the four finalists have been or will be interviewed in open forums on Michigan's campus. At these forums, students, faculty, staff and other community members can ask questions and can observe each finalist's leadership style and personal demeanor. Then, these constituents can submit their feedback and impressions to the eight-member Board of Regents charged with making the final choice. Though they were able to narrow the 300-plus candidate field behind closed doors, Michigan's Regents now must at least take into account community members' feelings before they come to consensus -- and that's clearly positive. Better to find out before hiring someone that he can't deal with student or faculty leaders except in small groups, right? Penn's presidential search process doesn't work like Michigan's; our Trustees interview finalists privately and then announce their choice. But with University President Judith Rodin rumored to be under consideration for a post in President Clinton's second cabinet, and with the odds realistic that Chodorow will leave at the end of this academic year, members of Penn's Board of Trustees could take a lesson from their colleagues at Michigan. Opening up the final stages of the University's next search for a high-level administrator would ensure that candidates understand the depth of feeling about various campus issues. It would also give candidates the opportunity to back out of a search if the atmosphere on campus didn't match their pre-conceived ideas or hopes. An open search process would allow students, faculty and staff -- who presidents and provosts serve -- to feel they have a part in the selection of their new leader. With constraints on the number of people who could attend open forums and the format tightly structured to prevent shouting matches and encourage honest, informed discourse, such a process would truly mirror the ideal of the university, as a place for the free exchange of ideas of all types.