Facts Over Fiction: It’s Time to End the Baseless Attacks on UVA’s Presidential Search
If you have listened to some of the continuous, repetitive commentary surrounding UVA’s recent presidential search, you might be led to believe it was some kind of rushed, politicized backroom maneuver. The facts and the truth tell a totally different story.
In fact, the search committee was the broadest and most inclusive in UVA history and the timeline itself was clearly in accordance with recent University history..The committee had twenty-eight members(the largest number ever), composed of faculty, students, and a bipartisan group of present and former Board members. The search committee also created a dedicated website inviting public engagement and input. By any reasonable measure, this was an expansive and inclusive process.
The timeline actually followed by the committee was squarely in sync with prior UVA presidential searches. . At five months, it mirrored the searches that brought John Casteen and Terry Sullivan to UVA, thus giving the lie to the oft repeated calumny that this was an intentionally rushed process. Moreover, the search firm retained—Isaacson, Miller—was the same one that recruited Jim Ryan. There was no sudden deviation from past practice, no improvised structure, no secret alternative track. The process followed was established and familiar.
What is different is not the process, but the highly coordinated reaction to the outcome.
Those disgruntled parties that did not get their preferred result have attempted to recast a standard, professional search as “politicized” or “illegitimate.” But continuously labeling a process as politically motivated or contrived does not make it so. In this situation, it is a clear example of ipse dixit—-it is because I say it is– and the charge says more about the critics than it does about the committee.
The search followed precedent. It included broad representation. It used the same professional firm that led the prior transition. The rules did not suddenly change. The difference is that some voices no longer had decisive influence over the result—and rather than acknowledge that shift, they have chosen to challenge the legitimacy of the structure itself. That is not a defense of legitimate process; it is an attempt to regain control of it.
Disagreement over leadership is natural. Rewriting the integrity of a process simply because it did not yield one’s preferred outcome is something else entirely. And if every decision is deemed “politicized” the moment it falls outside a particular faction’s orbit, then the word itself loses meaning.
It is time to put these unsubstantiated and prejudiced criticisms to rest. In conclusion, one only needs to read and digest the report to the Faculty Senate by the head of Isaacson, Miller, the distinguished presidential search firm leading the process, in which he stated:
The Special Committee has done its work on a classic search timeline, in line with most university presidential searches, including the prior two UVA presidential searches. The members of the Special Committee have many different perspectives, but they have listened carefully to the community, have acquired a unified vision of the work ahead, and have engaged seriously and diligently with evaluating potential candidate profiles and, then, with the candidates themselves. Over the last three months, the Committee has engaged in a meticulous and comprehensive effort to recruit, screen, and vet hundreds of potential candidates. The evaluation has been rigorous and thorough, in accordance with best search practices and guided by the priorities expressed by their colleagues in the UVA community. The seriousness of purpose and investment of time and energy have been intense. We are grateful to serve them. They have embraced their duties and have worked hard, collectively, to weigh the experience and talent of a group of impressive academic leaders.