Penn’s Faculty Senate expresses ‘grave concern’ over presidential search committee composition

The committee leading the search for Penn’s next president fails to reflect the diversity of the University community, according to a complaint lodged by Penn’s Faculty Senate.

On Oct. 9, the Senate tri-chairs addressed their “grave concern” over the composition of the search committee in a letter to University Board of Trustees Chair Ramanan Raghavendran. Announced last week, the committee consists of seven trustees and two faculty members.

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Pennsylvanian, argues that although that structure meets the minimum requirements set by the Statutes of the Trustees, “a more generous interpretation of those guidelines is needed at this current moment.”

Penn’s standard presidential search process is carried out by two groups, both of which are convened by the Trustees chair. The first, a consultative committee solicits community input to recommend desirable qualities for a Penn president. A search committee then finds, interviews, and recommends candidates.

The statutes mandate that the search committee includes a maximum of eight members in addition to the Trustees chair, with at least two trustees and at least two faculty members. There is no requirement for student representation.

“A Presidential Search Committee that better represents both faculty and students would be more likely to establish the foundation of trust required for the success of the incoming President,” the tri-chairs wrote.

College senior and Undergraduate Assembly President Musab Chummun, who served on the consultative committee but was not tapped for the search committee, wrote in a statement that the process of selecting a president “must include student input at each step.”

“It is important for students to be involved at every step of the process, especially with a decision that will affect the entire campus for years,” Chummun wrote. “While the committee composition is not violating any bylaws, it can still be improved.” 

Chummun added that he is working to draft “bylaw changes to codify a student seat on future Search committees.”

Raghavendran wrote in a statement that the composition of the search committee “was developed in accordance with the University’s Statutes and Standing Resolutions.”

“I am grateful to all who have contributed to this important process and confident that the Search Committee will conduct a rigorous, thoughtful, and successful search,” he added.

Raghavendran declined further requests for comment.

The Faculty Senate tri-chairs letter also expressed concern over the gender imbalance on the search committee, which includes only two women, both of whom are trustees. Due to membership limits, the letter suggested that one of the trustees on the committee could step aside or become a non-voting member to make room for a female faculty member.

The tri-chairs argued that the committee should better “reflect our faculty, which is composed of approximately 50% women.”

The Senate Executive Committee voted 36-1 to send the letter, with one abstention, according to an email circulated among SEC. The group will hold an emergency meeting on Thursday to discuss how to proceed, according to one SEC member who requested anonymity for fear of retribution.

“The composition of the Committee is particularly important considering the most recent presidential selection, which was made without the oversight of any committee or any faculty input,” the letter stated. 

When Larry Jameson was named Penn’s 10th president in March 2025 after serving in an interim capacity, the Board of Trustees chose not to follow the normal search procedures after consulting University and faculty leadership, citing “the pressing need for continuity.”

The two-committee presidential search system was established in 2009, driven by “a need for a more targeted, confidential, stream-lined search process.” Previously, all search activities were housed under a single consultative committee.

The 2003 consultative committee that led to the selection of former Penn President Amy Gutmann consisted of eight faculty, nine trustees, and four students.

Only one complete search — which resulted in the selection of former Penn President Liz Magill — has occurred since the current system was established. While the members of the 2021 consultative committee were listed online, the composition of that cycle’s search committee was not publicly disclosed.

That committee also only had two faculty representatives, according to one former member. But unlike the current iteration, the committee that went on to nominate Magill had four female participants.

According to the Executive Committee of Penn’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the 2009 changes constitute “an end run around shared governance.”

“Given the central importance of Penn’s President in defining our university climate and in charting Penn’s course in these highly dynamic times, we find this failure to meaningfully include faculty and students in the search process unacceptable,” the Executive Committee wrote. “Penn can and must do better.”

They added that a new president should “not want to join a campus that sees the search process as illegitimate.”

One member of the Faculty Senate — who also requested anonymity for fear of retribution — told the DP that SEC is looking for ways to give faculty a greater role in the search process.

“We recognize that it’s difficult once a process has been initiated to make radical alterations to it, but is there something that is possible as a way to enhance engagement with the faculty?” they said. 

The member added that another “part of the dialogue” is to determine whether there is cause to “reconsider” the structure of future search committees and “think about what the right way to represent the school is in the selection of a president.”

---