Hiring right chancellor for KU is important to school, state

Do the men and women serving on the search committee to identify, interview and select candidates for the chancellorship at Kansas University realize the critical importance of their mission?

Do they realize the tremendous potential for the university, for Lawrence, for the state of Kansas and for thousands of KU students if they find the right person? Conversely, do they realize the damage they could inflict on the university, its faculty members, its students, Lawrence and the state of Kansas if they don’t get the right individual?

Aside from the three KU faculty members and a dean serving on the committee, it is doubtful others on the search body fully understand the importance of their job. Likewise, aside from Jill Docking, a member of the Kansas Board of Regents, and Reggie Robinson, the regents president and CEO, both of whom are on the search committee, it is doubtful the regents realize the seriousness of the situation and how important it is to locate and hire the right person to move into the chancellor’s office.

There is great concern among KU faculty about the individual selected to lead the university for the next “X” number of years. A top-flight individual can help the university achieve greater levels of teaching and research excellence, attract outstanding faculty and students, increase private fiscal support and benefit the state in many, many ways.

A less-than-ideal selection would handcuff the university in many ways and would create a situation that probably could not be corrected in less than five years.

It is reported there is a level of understanding and/or support among KU’s faculty that candidates should not be limited to individuals with several graduate degrees who have written a number of papers and books and possibly served in academic administrative positions.

An individual with a good education, a record of success and recognition in business or professional fields, a visionary leader with charisma and communication skills also should be considered. It should be added that it would be preferable if a true academic should be selected that he or she also would be visionary in his or her dreams and aspirations for the university and have leadership, speaking and communication skills.

It is unfortunate no one on the search committee has served as a university chancellor or president. They know and understand the demands of the job and what makes the difference between an average and an excellent chancellor.

This is why it is puzzling that Del Shankel, professor emeritus of molecular biosciences, who served as KU’s interim chancellor, then chancellor (1980-81 and 1994-95) and executive vice chancellor (1974-80), as well as dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, vice chancellor for academic affairs and acting athletic director, was not invited to be a member of the search committee. He probably knows more about what is required of a KU chancellor than all the members of the search committee combined.

The KU search team hired a professional firm to assist in the search process. There is debate over whether such firms really deliver that much to the process or if they merely maintain a large file cabinet of names of individuals who are looking for jobs, men and women who were considered but rejected for other university positions, and other factors such as openings at private schools vs. state-aided schools, salary demands and geography.

Headhunters promise to give extra special attention to the university search team that has hired them, but how many truly new, fresh, never-tested candidates do they come up with?

The firm that handled the search process that landed KU Provost Richard Lariviere as the University of Oregon’s new president is the same firm KU hired to find its new chancellor. How much research did representatives of that firm do in interviewing KU faculty, deans, Lawrence residents and others who know Lariviere? Did they ask them what they thought of Lariviere and the job he has done at Mount Oread? How thorough was their search? How thorough are the much-touted search firms and are they hired primarily to take pressure off search committees?

One of the questions surrounding the KU search effort is whether to have the semifinal search process include a beauty contest where the final three or four candidates are paraded before faculty and student groups or to conduct the search exercise in a confidential manner, zeroing in on a specific candidate who is head and shoulders above the other candidates, telling that individual he or she has the job but must go through the formalities of a public viewing.

It is believed a number of candidates will be invited to individual interviews, probably somewhere near the Kansas City airport. This group then would be narrowed to three or five people for final consideration.

Many readers probably think this writer already has written too much on the chancellor situation. That’s fine, but with the chancellorship opening up in June and the provost going to Oregon, a great deal is at stake. It cannot be overemphasized. KU needs a strong, powerful leader who can inspire faculty, enthuse alumni and friends and help guide the university to greater levels of academic excellence.

It is doubtful if the general citizenry has any idea of the concern and worry among KU faculty, and many alumni, about the “chancellor situation.” They are hungry for visionary leadership and for the entire university, not just the burgeoning athletics department, to regain the “swagger” the school used to enjoy.

Speaking of the athletics department, there is great concern — perhaps anger or disappointment are better words — over what appears to be the complete surrender by the chancellor to the millions upon millions of dollars spent by the athletics department while cutbacks are required for many of KU’s academic areas. They worry athletics boosters may influence and control the selection of a new chancellor.

Why not aspire to be one of the nation’s outstanding state-aided universities? Dreams and goals were expressed before by the current administration but, unfortunately, the results have not measured up.

There’s no reason KU can’t be a national leader. Already, there are KU schools and departments that are ranked among the top five or 10 in their specific teaching and research areas, but the overall ranking has not kept pace.

The selection of a new chancellor is the first step in giving the university, its faculty and students the chance to develop into a truly outstanding state-aided institution.

The university and the state deserve the best possible efforts of those serving on the search committee. They can, and will, determine the excellence of the next chancellor and the development of the university for the next 10 to 20 years.

Will they measure up to this task?