Editor,
One of the questions consistently asked of the presidential finalists was about their qualifications to be the president of UNM, a complex organization of about 30,000 students, 3,000 faculty and quite a large staff. Yet, hardly 20 students and usually less than 100 faculty or staff attended their respective forums. The low turnout is one of many self-contradictions about our claims of size, diversity and excellence. But here, I write in reaction to the general faculty meeting that was held Tuesday evening.
Attended by about 70 members, the meeting was held to discuss the merits of the five presidential finalists, but the tone of conversation defied the intended purpose. Like the proverbial blind men describing the same animal or object differently, every other faculty member characterized each finalist differently.
Some of the finalists were too highly praised, others were unnecessarily maligned. The exercise was neither enlightening nor inspiring. Although some members of the search committee attended the meeting, no one provided an illumination, much less defended the maligned or their actions in selecting the finalists. To me, who attended all the forums, it seemed someone has been preordained the whole truth. And the meeting also suffered from a tremendous haste, as the moderator tried to accommodate 70 individuals to air their views in less than 50 minutes. I was nervous when I stood up to speak and couldn't say much in one minute.
In the end, the participants passed a resolution naming two of the finalists as the only ones who could engender respect from the faculty. The resolution is nonbinding on the regents, who must make the ultimate decision with input from every corner of the community. It would mean the faculty and the regents will have exercised their democratic rights and prerogatives, and we shall soon learn the outcome.
The regents announced the five finalists, following policies and months of deliberation, with assistance of external consultants. That is proof that all of the candidates are qualified, and any one of them can do a good job. The question at the meeting should have been which one of the five is more likely to do better than the others. Instead, the discussions crossed the line, over to an elitist sort of condescension toward some and a boundless kind of adoration for others.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
In one case of exclusion from recommendation, finalist Herman Lujan has been a provost or president at four institutions of higher learning in four regions of the country, and in many diverse settings. Furthermore, he played a key role in computerizing data systems for the U.S. Senate, a significant experience to run a complex institution.
In fairness to your readers, I personally know Lujan, who, like the rest of them, would not only engender, but also command the respect of any academic community. Like anyone else, I believe I can respect and work with the regents' selection for president. By the same token, if I have my way, I would take a risk with a person I have seen and known in action, rather than take a giant leap of faith in someone I have briefly met.
Admasu Shunkuri
UNM faculty
