N.C. alone in college hiring secrecy

Quote :

"North Carolina is the only state in the nation that selects the top leaders of all its public universities in secret. In 49 other states, the names of the finalists for university president or chancellor positions are made public, a Fayetteville Observer study shows. Six states release the names of all applicants. A few states have no single governing policy, according to the survey of 118 university systems or individual schools. Some universities in those states close the process, but at least one school or university system in every state, except North Carolina, selects leaders in public. State Rep. Mary McAllister, chairwoman of a House subcommittee on universities, was surprised by the results of the Observer study. 'I would be more than happy to look at this. I had no idea. I just thought that was the norm, that you kept the name secret,' McAllister said. 'But that doesn't hold water.' She and State Sen. Larry Shaw, both from Fayetteville, said they would consider proposing a revision in the state open meetings laws in order to open up the process. 'These are tax-supported institutions, and I think the tax-payers have a right to know,' Shaw said. 'Now at what point in the process I don't know; but if the taxpayers are putting their money towards it, then it has to have some sunshine.' Amanda Martin, a lawyer for the North Carolina Press Association, said she would endorse moving to a system in which the names of job finalists are made public. That's what roughly 85 percent of public universities do across the country, according to the Observer survey."

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=287300

I think the UNC System leaders have done this (1) because they can and (2) because we have simply let them do it. I mean, there's a long history in the South of many people feeling intimidated about taking a stand against people in certain stations or with certain titles.

Open it up. Let the sun shine in.

4/10/2008 8:37:03 PM

so does this pertain to affirmative action and what not? what i mean is, if a college releases their finalist list, and there are no minorities, i'd think they'd get in trouble, but unc doesnt have to worry cause its private...therefore what if unc never puts a black person but they dont release it...sounds like unc should get in trouble

4/10/2008 8:50:28 PM

I'm not sure I agree with keeping the candidates private, but one argument for it is that candidates for high-level executive positions generally already have jobs and if it gets back to their current workplace it will cause problems, especially if they don't get/take the new job.

4/10/2008 9:28:05 PM

^ Then how is it that the numerous candidates in the other 49 states seem to manage just fine with having their names revealed?

4/10/2008 9:51:55 PM

drunk
n
fucking
tarded

What in the hell makes you think that UNC is a private college? Seriously! It touts itself as the nations oldest fucking PUBLIC university.

How in the fuck did you make it past 3rd grade?

4/10/2008 11:19:15 PM

makes you feel that some people don't really understand why we hate UNC, eh?

4/10/2008 11:32:05 PM

No reason not to have the selection of public officials made public.

4/10/2008 11:36:22 PM

Quote :

"drunk n fucking tarded What in the hell makes you think that UNC is a private college? Seriously! It touts itself as the nations oldest fucking PUBLIC university. How in the fuck did you make it past 3rd grade? "

Not to burst your bubble but I think DNL meant UNC doesn't have to worry because the information is private.

4/10/2008 11:44:44 PM

hahahhahahaa

good stuff.

4/11/2008 9:33:16 AM

Quote :

"makes you feel that some people don't really understand why we hate UNC, eh? "

I hope you realize that NC State is part of the UNC system.

4/11/2008 12:01:57 PM

There are compelling reasons to maintain the confidentiality of applicants, because you want to attract the best applicants. Obviously this needs to be balanced with openness/input, so making the finalists public with their consent isn't a bad compromise.

4/11/2008 1:29:12 PM

^ Well, then why haven't we been doing the latter?

4/11/2008 2:24:59 PM

I was making a commentary, not a defense. I imagine the system has leaned stronger to the confidentiality/not wanting to deter applicants side of things.

Heck, at many universities the boosters have to vote on whether to approve the basketball/football coach's contract.

4/11/2008 3:31:20 PM

^ Understood. But I now want to move the thread more toward (1) how this secrecy happened and (2) why we let it happen.

And the confidentiality argument--no matter who's making it--has grown tiresome. It has already been established that 49 other states somehow manage to recruit top candidates without UNC's draconian secrecy.

Quote :

"In 49 other states, the names of the finalists for university president or chancellor positions are made public, a Fayetteville Observer study shows. Six states release the names of all applicants."

4/11/2008 4:10:19 PM

Quote :

"Not to burst your bubble but I think DNL meant UNC doesn't have to worry because the information is private."

sounds to me like you are as stupid as DNL if you would buy that argument

4/11/2008 7:59:06 PM

swing, and a miss

4/11/2008 8:06:51 PM