Campus Echo,
According to the Campus Echo article, "CLA dean search draws fire" (Jan. 19, 2011), three searches were conducted.
Only one person applied the first time, so the search was extended. During the second search, three individuals were under consideration.
As most academics know, candidates sometimes withdraw their applications or turn down positions they have been offered.
So, at this point, the committee (and the provost) should have addressed the question, "Is this applicant pool adequate, or do we need to extend the search again?"
Apparently, either no one bothered to address this question or the committee (and the provost) decided to risk the possibility that they might end up with only one candidate.
The process moved forward: interviews were scheduled.
Eventually, not too surprisingly, two candidates withdrew their names. Given that the committee had not seemed concerned about the possibility of that outcome, it was perfectly reasonable to expect that the job would be offered to the remaining candidate, the committee's second choice.
But at this late stage in the search process, the provost decided that the applicant pool was too small.
Should a provost exercise his power in this way?
At any rate, the timing of his decision raises questions: Did he now find the applicant pool too small because he wanted someone other than Dr. Mary Mathew (the committee's second choice) to become Dean?
According to the Campus Echo article, the third search (like the second) yielded three candidates. But again apparently no one was worried about the possibility that one or two candidates might withdraw their names or refuse the job offer.
Had the provost been faced, for a second time, with only one name left in the applicant pool, would he have decided, yet again, to extend the search?
Or would his decision have depended on which candidate remained?
is a member of the 
Be the first to comment on this article! Log in to Comment
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now