University Presidential Search Processes and the Imbalance in Discourse Control

Though the availability of money to public institutions is of even more vital importance today, funding shouldn’t be a university’s top priority. Rather, the success of students, teachers and the university as a whole should be the guiding principle. But as of late, a focus on money has seeped into the hiring of university presidents. Why? Because discourse of the search processes caters excessively towards board members, when it should invite an open conversation between all people involved in the institution. Trustees may want the best for the university, but their vision of what is best is not the same as others. Presidential search discourse reflects a focus on the ideas of a board, and not the school and its parts. The discourse should invite an open conversation and debate on who is qualified for a position. Ignoring voices in a conversation isn’t the way to do this.

As seen in recent instances, like at Purdue University, the College of Charleston, Louisiana State University, and Florida State University, presidential search processes can lend to restricting public discussion of a candidate. At the beginning of its search process, FSU’s search committee was prepared to make the decision to interview Republican Senator John Thrasher as its sole candidate. But, only after facing student and teacher outcry and opposition did the search committee decide to make the process more open. The discourse of candidate selection was already concealed and one-sided. And though the process eventually invited more candidates and became open to public discussion, the feeling that a decision was already made lingered.

And that feeling seems replicated in the other search processes. David Kaufer questions in “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments” how we decide between two competing analogies. He says “the substance of the views an arguer expresses is not alone a sufficient test of his or her skill at resolving issues of values,” (66) meaning just because a person or group may have a subjective view doesn’t mean they can’t argue for a clearer resolution. The goal should be for multiple groups of different subjective views to collaborate in order to find the best resolution. But, when there is a lack of collaboration, this goal can’t be met. The discourse of discussion in university president search processes indeed seems to be misrepresented.

Though students and teachers may cry out, a decision is already made. How can trustees elect a president, without reasoning with the argument of teachers and students? Former provost and interim president at American University Milton Greenberg suggests in his commentary article “You Don’t Need a Search Firm to Hire a President” that “search consultants are hired by and report to the board of trustees, often diminishing the influence of traditional campus constituencies.” Greenberg highlights another inherent problem in the discourse of presidential searches: the trustees dictate the discourse of the process, focusing on their own ideal candidates instead of publicly discussed ones. From the beginning, the control of the discourse of search processes lies in the hands of one group: the administration of the school and its trustees. This makes it less likely the discourse will encompass all players in an argument.

In other words, including all the players in “the discourse community” is ideally the only way a reasonable conclusion should be attained.  James Porter defines the term “discourse community” in his article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” as “a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated” (38-39). The presidential search process discourse community is all those involved in process of selecting a president and those involved in a university. But, the power in the discourse community is imbalanced, so that the discourse is dictated by one particular group within the community. In this case, it’s the trustees or the selecting committee. Controversy from search processes comes from the inability of committees to hear the opposing side of an argument for or against a candidate. The goal of a discourse community should be to strive for fair and balanced discussion, where all sides and views are given equal opportunities to be heard and reasoned with. All participants in the discourse community of a university president search should want collaboration in discourse when picking a candidate. Otherwise, the resolution is heavily in favor of one side of an argument, without consideration of the opposition.

Public deliberation is one key component that assures all sides of an argument are heard. In “Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation” James McDonald says “public deliberation is a practice by which each party is exposed to the knowledge and interpretations of its adversaries. All parties involved can therefore discover, even create, new knowledge that changes their initial position” (200). But was public deliberation really present in recent search processes that stirred controversy? Students and teachers were able to pose questions and raise issues publicly, even in front of candidates. But, this doesn’t constitute public deliberation. Where is reasoning and conversation when the board of trustees dismisses the argument of students and teachers? There is no deliberation when sides refuse to consider the arguments of the opposition. In FSU’s case, the discourse gave the appearance of public deliberation, rather than actually having public deliberation. The discourse wasn’t fostering balanced discussion, which lead to an imbalanced resolution.

The discourse of university presidential searches needs to be hinged on the collaboration and discussion of trustees, search committees, and teachers and students. But with recent searches in mind, the discourse appeals to the ideals of trustees only, and what they see is best for a university. They aren’t the only ones in the community. Students and teachers need also to be equally represented and heard. Arguments should be reasoned with and should help reach a better solution. The discourse community needs to be balanced. With deciding power in the hands of a disproportionate member of the discourse community, it’s vital that the trustees be compelled to listen and collaborate with opposing sides of the community. And finally, the discourse needs true deliberation, not just the appearance of it. Without healthy deliberation, a discourse is ineffective.

Works Cited

Kaufer, David S. “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments.” College Composition and Communication 35.1 (Feb 1984): 57-70. JSTOR.

McDonald, James. “I Agree, but … : Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects through Public Deliberation.” Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation. Ed. Christian Kock and Lisa S. Villadsen. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 2012. 119-217. Print.

Porter, James E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review 5.1 (Autumn 1986): 34-47. JSTOR.

Milton, Greenberg. “You Don’t Need a Search Firm to Hire a President.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Educaton, 1 Sept. 2014. Web.