sections |
Dear Campus Community,
Ithaca College is at a critical point in its history. With the Presidential Search Committee recently announcing that they will no longer be bringing final candidates to campus for public meetings, there has been considerable unrest on campus about this decision, which has spurred an opportunity to evaluate our campus in multiple lights as the semester comes to a close.
Despite disagreement on campus about the search decision to make it more confidential, our commitment to the importance of sustaining and creating working relationships across constituencies for the long term well-being of the college continues. We encourage campus community members to engage in active dialogue with each other about the future of this institution, while also calling for the search committee to create the best atmosphere possible to allow for the success of ninth president of Ithaca College. It terms of having a more confidential search, this will give us a better chance at identifying qualified candidates who may be unable to come publicly to campus. Especially as we begin to run out of time in terms of our current President Rochon’s retirement, it puts us at a point where we may either have to find an interim or extend contracts if we do not make the search more confidential.
As the hiring in higher education changes in terms of presidents and candidates, we must respect this shift. As we have seen through the search committee's efforts at keeping the search open, we must trust in their judgement in making the search more confidential. With the increase in the use of social media and the risks involved for candidates going into an open search, the trends of higher education moving to closed searches is reasonable.
Disengaging from the search categorically without considering the reasoning of the search committee is unproductive and risks damaging our campuses long term future. It is even more disheartening to see that while we were once able to rally together as students, faculty, and staff to create a more sustainable future, we are unable to commit to that principle in supporting our colleagues in their decision.
As per our first letter in May, we are still “asking for cultural competency, transparency, servant leadership, shared governance, and most importantly, a greater level of respect across campus”. We would like to clarify that this not only applies to members of the search committee on whom the campus is dependent to be transparent and forthcoming, but also to campus community members themselves. Holding each other accountable does not simply mean critiquing, editorializing, and disengaging, it means creating pathways to meaningful conversations in the hopes of reaching a better solution. We implore the campus to think deeply and thoughtfully about how to move forward given the committee’s decision, and to ask questions regarding what we as community members can propose as routes of alternative engagement.
Best Regards, Marieme Foote, Student Body President Michele Hau, VP of Academic Affairs Ezeka Allen, VP of Business Affairs Danielle Weinstein, VP of Communications Carlie McClinesy, Senate Chair Meredith Husar, Chief of Staff
Message From SGC On The Presidential Search Comment from
rplante on
12/09/16
I've only been on campus for 13 years, but I've already noticed a disturbing
trend (over the past year or so). It feels to me as if the trend in 'official' communications is to shake a finger, to scold the campus community. That this scolding has largely been around dissent, debate, and critique is particularly disturbing. Whose idea is it, collectively, symbolically, or otherwise, to scold this community of adult learners, scholars, and thinkers? Can we not acknowledge multiple perspectives on this presidential search? We were polled about our feelings/thoughts re: a completely confidential search; many of us said we were very uncomfortable with that, to say the least. To be told months later that our solicited opinions are ultimately irrelevant is to open the space for us to collectively dissent and question. Is the campus really so fragile that we need to be told - repeatedly - about how we all need to think, respond, and react in the same ways? Must we pledge fealty to some greater power in order for the college to continue? |
© Copyright Ithaca College. All rights reserved; unauthorized use prohibited. All material on this server is produced by our community but, except for designated pages, is neither approved nor verified by Ithaca College.
Two other points I would make:
1. I am not aware of faculty or staff searches where confidentiality of finalist status is offered. In many respects, untenured faculty applying for positions here and staff (typically hired and fired "at will" or at the end of a contractually-determined period) may be more vulnerable than many candidates for the presidency at IC who, more often than not, have tenure at their present institutions and, if under serious consideration for the IC presidency, no doubt may have other opportunities as well.
2. In the aftermath of a presidency marked by secrecy and by a general sense of devaluation of the principal constituencies led by and served by the president, I am not sure I can have confidence in the appointment of someone who is not willing to have their status known to the entire campus and, by implication, unwilling to meet with the campus as a whole as part of the process. The implications of this for what will be considered acceptable leadership style are chilling to me.