COLUMN: Picking a provost in private

From Marisa Katz's, "Ineluctable Modality of the Visible," Fall '98 From Marisa Katz's, "Ineluctable Modality of the Visible," Fall '98There are some administrative decisions the general student body doesn't need to be intimately involved with. The selection of a provost -- a university's chief academic officer -- is one of them. This first question is overly simplistic, the latter more complex. To address the former: there is no foreseeable reason that would give either Rodin or the search committee members cause to drag their feet in this process. They obviously all want a smoothly running university, and a permanent provost is a prerequisite for that goal. That is not to say that the University wouldn't benefit from the expeditious appointment of a qualified candidate. While Interim Provost Michael Wachter has done an excellent job since he took on the role, the lack of a permanent provost has inevitably slowed some aggressive academic and facility-related planning. But being too hasty in making an appointment is not beneficial either, as was demonstrated at Dartmouth College recently. Dartmouth Provost James Wright was forced to step down this summer due to criticism that former Dartmouth President James Freedman did not consult a search committee in appointing him. Now the school is having to appoint its second provost in a little over a year. If we acknowledge, then, that an efficient appointment of a quality candidate -- following a search whose parameters conform to the established procedure -- is in everyone's best interest, we must look for other reasons that may have slowed the process in which we are now involved. One must keep in mind that many factors play into -- and contribute to the laborious nature of -- the narrowing down of candidates to a short list and then to a final prospect. Not only must the search committee find a person that fits a certain profile deemed appropriate for the position, but it must convince that person that he or she wants to come to Penn. This task is not so easy given the number of provost positions that have recently turned -- and are constantly turning -- over. By nature, the provost post is a stepping stone job, usually lasting only a handful of years before its holder moves onto a presidency. Rodin herself was provost at Yale University for only a three-year term before coming to Penn. And to give you an idea of what the University's been competing with as officials look for a new academic chief, Harvard University, Dartmouth and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign all lost their provosts recently as a result of presidential searches that also tapped Chodorow. With these other factors in mind, we should return to the question of the open versus closed process. On the level of presidential searches, the issue is discussed frequently, as most state universities are required to conduct their searches in public, while most private universities abide by a confidential process. Alternatively, the confidential process is grounded in the belief that if names are withheld until the final decision is made, potential candidates will retain their authority at their home institutions. The same pros and cons transfer to open and closed provost searches. With the potential to lose respect without gaining a job, want-to-be provosts no doubt find schools that conduct searches in private more attractive than institutions that must reveal the various stages of the process publicly. And although one might argue that Penn -- an institution that has seen a sharp rise in academic reputation in recent years -- should not need to worry about incentives, as we've already seen, the competition is tough. And so we have a situation where we must rely solely on the judgement of Rodin and her provost search committee. Since the University president works most closely with the provost, it makes sense that the decision is ultimately Rodin's. And especially since she and Chodorow did not always see eye to eye on a lot of policy decisions, it is natural that Rodin may want to look at candidates more carefully this time around. As a former provost herself, she should know what to keep an eye out for. But when there is no obvious movement as far as the progress of the search, the complaints start pouring in. Many students -- and particularly student-journalists -- don't usually like to take on a laissez-faire attitude regarding administrative decisions. So they start to demand to know names of those being considered and that their opinions be taken into account. Given that four of the search committee's 15 members are students, the argument that student input is being ignored is not valid. And especially before a short list is identified, there is not much the general student body could add that Rodin and the search committee members aren't aware of. Of course, students should feel free to submit their ideal provost profile to members of the committee. But most likely, they already know that we'd like someone who's enthusiastic about academics and who can develop a good working rapport with students. Plus, having devoted extensive time to this issue, they know better than we do who are the potential candidates out there. It may be odd for me, as someone involved in journalism, to take the stance that a closed process is preferable to an open one. But I would truly like to see a permanent provost named before I graduate this spring. And, unless those responsible for recommending candidates is limited to the members of the search committee and the final decision is left up to Rodin, this will never happen.