The role of diversity and affirmative action in the search of a university President: a review of the selection process of Michigan State University 's 17th President.

Introduction
In 2000 the American Council on Education (ACE) published the fourth report in the National Presidents’ Study series. The National Presidents’ Study is the only source of demographic data on college and university presidents from all sectors of American higher education. The report includes information on presidents of 2,380 public and private institutions of higher education consistent with the Carnegie classification system of 1994. In the 2000 report the ACE found that the proportion of minority presidents in higher education institutions represents only 11 percent of that group, showing a very small increase since 1986 when the proportion was 8 percent (ACE National Presidency Study, 2000).

In the State of Michigan, by constitutional mandate, the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University has the responsibility of selecting the President of the University (Michigan Constitution, Article 8, Section 5). In February of 1984 the 16th President of MSU, Cecil Mackey, formally announced his resignation from the position he held since 1979. Immediately after Mackey’s resignation the MSU Board of Trustees started the process for the selection of the 17th President of the institution. The present work reviews the role of diversity and affirmative action, if any, during that process. The work takes into consideration the different participants of the process (The resigning President, the Trustees, the Search Committee, and members of the academic community) and presents how each constituency addressed the issues of diversity and affirmative action.

President Mackey’s remarks
In a public Special Meeting celebrated in February 14, 1984 President Cecil Mackey, the 16th President of Michigan State University, officially announced his resignation from MSU’s presidency (The Board of Trustees, Minutes of the February 14, 1984 Special Meeting). During his resignation speech, President Mackey outlined his accomplishment during his years in the President’s position. Of particular interest for this work were the areas related to affirmative action:

“It was my conclusion that we had dealt specifically with a number of major problems in particular areas of the university where there was a need for change, a need for improvement, a need for new direction. These range from administrative matters like data processing organization… [ ] to major policy areas like affirmative action where we’ve made remarkable progress.” (The Board of Trustees, Minutes of the February 14, 1984 Special Meeting, p. 1)

According to President Mackey affirmative action campus was a major concern, not only for him, but also for the Board of Trustees when he assumes the Presidency:

“In the Summer of 1979, at the time I accepted the position of president of Michigan State University, the Board of Trustees made it clear that it sought strong leadership to give direction to the institution and its academic programs. [ ] The Trustees were particularly concerned about inadequate progress in affirmative action” (The Board of Trustees, Minutes of the February 14, 1984 Special Meeting, p. 3).

Mackey’s achievements in affirmative action, recognized by himself and by the Board of Trustees, included:

“Through this entire period, affirmative action has been a major commitment. Within a short time after my arrival, we hired the first female vice president and the first Black vice president in MSU history. We have appointed minorities and women to positions of leadership and high administrative responsibility: and assitant vice president, two assistants to vice presidents, three deans, seven associate or assistant deans, seven directors, and nine chair persons and assistant directors. The number of minorities in the tenure system has increased and Black chairpersons have been appointed in the Departments of Psychiatry, Audiology and Speech Sciences, and Family Medicine. Until these three appointments in 1983, Michigan State had no Black chairpersons. We have also made administrators expressly accountable for affirmative action by including it among the criteria for evaluating deans, directors and chairpersons.” (The Board of Trustees, Minutes of the February 14, 1984 Special Meeting, p. 7)

In a statement accepting the resignation, Trustee and Chairperson of the Board Barbara Sawyer recognized the achievements in fostering affirmative action by mentioning also “the selection of the first Black and first women female vice presidents in the history of MSU” and the “increased numbers of women and minorities in key policy making and academic administrative positions” as part of Mackey’s biggest accomplishments as a President.

In April 5, 1984 the Board of Trustees conducted a public meeting to hear from representatives of constituent groups of the University on the presidential selection process. Professors, academic administrators, members of the external community, staff, students, and Alumni were invited to present their point of view on the process and the desire qualities of the new President. A total of sixteen members of the community participated in the hearing. (Board Meeting Minutes, April 5, 1984).

While some participants focused their remarks on the selection process, other talked about the qualities and desire characteristics of the candidates to the position. Dr. Jeanne Gullahorn, a former member of the 1978-79 Presidential Search Committee, urged the Board to reach and agreement in terms of the mode of participation and the selection process. Dr. Charles Webb, Executive Director of the Alumni Association, focused on the participation of his organization in the Search Committee. Dr. Russell Mawby, Chairman of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, expressed that the criteria for the new president should include integrity, personal character, concern for students education, and the ability to generate support from Legislature, alumni, the corporate world and foundations, among other characteristics.

Only five out of the sixteen participants (31%) in the public hearings talked about diversity or affirmative action as criteria in the selection process. The first to mentioned diversity, although not in such a categorical way, was Dr. Lawrence Sommers, Chairperson of the Steering Committee of the Academic Council. Dr. Summers declared that he felt the president must communicate effectively to diversified constituencies of the University. LeAnn Slicer, President of the Clerical-Technical Union, made the most clear-cut statement on affirmative action concerns, when mentioning that, in addition to the academic criteria, the president should have a strong commitment to affirmative action and a belief in the quality of work life. In similar terms expressed Dr. Charles Scarborough, Director of Lyman Briggs schools, when arguing the qualities of the new president must include “a strong commitment to undergraduate education as well as liberal education, with emphasis on commitment to affirmative action in the classroom, in the hiring policies, and the procurement of goods and services.” (Board Meeting Minutes, April 5, 1984). Gloria Tate and Ronald Tenpas, representatives of the Student Council and ASMSU (Associated Students of Michigan State University), respectively, also included affirmative action commitment and successful record as important criteria.

The PSAS Report
As an integral part of the presidential search the Board of Trustees hired an external group to served as consultant during the process. The Presidential Search and Assessment Service (PSAS), from Washington, D.C., was the selected consultant group. Dr. Frederic W. Ness, Director of PSAS served as the primary consultant of the Board and the Search Committee. In May 2, 1984 PSAS presented the Report on Presidential Selection Procedures with the guidelines for the selection process (from now on the PSAS report).

The part K (Affirmative Action) of the PSAS report included the specific considerations the Search Committee should followed when screening the candidates:

“One of the notable achievements of MSU has been its effort to ensure affirmative action at all levels. The arrears in our society in general, and even within the academic communities, are such as to require the constant attention of persons in key leadership positions. A university president lacking such commitment could not succeed at MSU.
In identifying these particular issues we do not suggest that there are not other problems in an institution if the size and complexity of MSU. We do believe, though, that these are priority matters that will require considerable presidential care during the first years of the new administration – and that, accordingly, they should be determinative in defining the qualities to be possessed by the kind of leader MSU needs and deserves”. (PSAS report, p. 10).

It was clear for the Consultant that previous success and demonstrated commitment towards affirmative action should be a determinant characteristic of the new president. To reinforce their view “commitment to affirmative action” was included as an official qualification for the candidates (PSAS report, p 12).

The Search Committee
The diversity criterion was not exclusive for the presidential candidates. Diversity was a concern in terms of the constitution of the search committee. The PSAS recommended limit participation to one representative for each primary group of the university (faculty, staff, student, alumni) in order to keep the committee as small as possible. The consultant understood that keeping the committee small would help to control diversity among the members. “The provision of a stale for each constituent group is essential to ensure that the committee be balances by including women and minorities” (PSAS Report, p. 14). In the Board Meeting on May 21, 1984, Trustee Sawyer stated that following extensive conversation with consultant they recommend keeping the Search Committee small and she indicated that she supported their recommendation”. (Board Meeting Minutes, May 21, 1984).

The Board did follow an interest in diversity while creating the Search Committee. In a Commentary about the process prepared by Trustee Sawyers, she established that “The Board determined that it was important to assure balance on the committee with male and female, white and non-white representation, and urged nominators to be reflective of that balance, reserving the right to assure that balance by selecting the final committee membership” (Sawyers, 1984, p. 3).

Also, among the criteria for Committee membership one was that the participant “must be committed to the concept of affirmative action.” More direct than just showing commitment, the Board issued a statement making clear that any efforts by the committee to attract qualified candidates should be guided by the University’s commitment to affirmative action.” (PSAS report, p. 15). Appointments of the members of the Search Committee were finally done in June 7, 1984 (Board Minutes). Finally, the eight members of the Board of Trustees, a faculty member, an academic administrator (dean), a student and an alumna integrated the committee.

Screening the presidential candidates
In order to determine the eligibility of the prospective candidates to the position of MSU President the Search Committee used two primary documents; the Guidelines for the Presidential Search sub-committee –developed by the Presidential Search Assessment Service- and the Screening Scale for Interview Process –created in 1978 by the Advisory Committee for the Presidential Search and revised by the council of Deans in 1984 (Screening Scale for Interview Process, p. 1).
The Guidelines included the following (summarized) expectations from a presidential candidate (The Board of Trustees, 1984 Presidential Search Process, Final Report, p. 3-4):

• Develop a vision for Michigan State University through presidential leadership.
• Articulate this vision to the various constituencies of Michigan State University.
• Strongly support both the land-grant and AAU (Association of American Universities) thrusts and philosophies of the University.
• Maintain and strengthen the international dimension of Michigan State University
• Emphasize improving the external relations of MSU, but not lose the contact with the faculty, their needs and aspirations, and their significant role in meeting the academic mission of the University.
• Through outgoing, personal leadership efforts, develop a trust and understanding among the various constituencies of MSU.
• Develop an effective line administrative team.
• Be firmly committed to developing and implementing strong affirmative action goals and results.
• Exhibit strong leadership in better relating Michigan State University to the economic, political, and social environment and needs of Michigan.
• Develop institutional priorities and assist the University in further growth.
• Be conscious of the needs of students
• Exhibit ability in managing large financial resources.

As shown above, the commitment towards affirmative action was officially a criterion considered while making the recommendations of prospective candidates. However, there’s no single mention of diversity as something different from affirmative action. (I’ll discuss that in more details as part of the observations and conclusions).

The Screening Scale for Interview Process addressed the candidate’s qualifications slightly different. The Scale provided the committee seven elements of judgment:

• Evaluate the candidate in terms of understanding of, commitment to and appreciation of the land-grant tradition in a public university with AAU status. Consider particularly experience or promise in dealing with the diverse constituencies which have some functional relationship with the University.
• Evaluate the candidate’s record with regard to ability to relate to the Michigan Scene.
• Evaluate the candidate in relationship to the university’s commitment to equal opportunity and affirmative action and the candidate’s ability to encourage fulfillment of all university policies. Consider record of achievement in this area.
• Evaluate the candidate in terms of academic preparedness.
• Evaluate the candidate in terms of administrative preparedness
• Evaluate the candidate on fiscal, budgetary matters and resources of the university.

From the seven qualifications established by the Scale two were related to dealing with diversity (although still undefined) and affirmative action. Proportionally, the Scale weighted more the issues of diversity –28%– in contrast with the Guidelines – 17%.

The final decision
In order to obtain a large pool of candidates the Search Committee conducted a national search. Committee members solicited nominations by contacting presidents of land-grant and AAU universities, presidents of Big Ten universities, presidents of Michigan Universities, presidents of Washington based higher education associations, presidents and directors of national level women’s and minority organizations, presidents of women and minority dominant colleges and universities, and by placing a notice in the Chronicle of Higher Education (The Board of Trustees, 1984 Presidential Search Process, Final Report, p. 2). The posting of the position in the Chronicle was made as a requirement of the University’s affirmative action policy (The Board of Trustees, Minutes of the March 3, 1994 meeting, p.3)

The search produced a total of 202 candidates: 61 were presidents or chancellors at the moment of the search; 96 held other positions such as vice-president, provost, dean, chairperson, and professors; 45 came from non-academic settings. Among the candidates 22 were women and 14 were minorities.

The Search Committee, by unanimous consensus, recommended only one candidate for the position: Dr. John A. DiBiaggio, at that time President of University of Connecticut. The Board of Trustees accepted the recommendation and in November 15, 1984 named DiBiaggio 17th President of Michigan State University.

Observations and reflections
One of the issues that called my attention since the beginning of this review process was the one related to participation. How can anybody foster diversity when the participation of the constituencies of the university is intentionally limited. In the Report prepared by the Presidential Search and Assessment Services consultant group the adviser declared that the recommendations made to the Board were based on “the review of a considerable number of documents” and “two and a half days spent in interviewing some seventy-six persons in individual and group meetings” (PSAS Report, p. 1). I may ask, how representative could be a group of sixty people in a campus of forty thousand students and almost four thousand employees, including professors and staff? Earlier, we discussed that PSAP also recommended, and the Board approved, to limit the participation in the Search Committee to just one representative of each group in the university.

Furthermore, in Trustee Sawyer’s Commentary about the process, previously cited, she considered as a positive aspect the limitation of participation in the public hearings conducted by the Board at the beginning of the process (Sawyers 1984, p. 2). In order fair, I must admit that is very difficult to reach consensus in such an important task like selecting a university President, especially with large Committees. But in the other hand it’s very difficult also to further diversity by limiting participation, even more if the groups representatives are chosen by the governing body.
Other important consideration in this discussion should be, who defines diversity? Unfortunately, in the process under discussion nobody did it. Even less, the different members of the academic community vaguely mentioned it.

Most of the time people confuse the ideas of diversity and affirmative action. While the second one always has a positive impact on the first one, they are not the same. To assure the participation of underrepresented groups like women and blacks doesn’t guarantee a diverse environment. When dealing with academic settings, differences are more important than ethnic diversity. For example, the point of view of a person from an urban area might be different from the point of view of a person from a rural area. Other concepts of diversity might include low-income vs. high income, higher education vs. lower education, religious beliefs, and of course gender and race.

Without any hesitation I consider that one of the weaknesses of the process, in terms of fostering diversity, was the lack of clear and cut definitions. However, I must concede that the concerns and awareness of diversity and affirmative action were present in every stage of the process, and at least in theory, were fully addressed.

References

American Council on Education. 2000. National Presidency Study. Available Online: http://www.acenet.edu/programs/policy/president-study/index.cfm

Michigan Constitution, Article 8, Section 5.
Avilable Online: http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getobject&objName=mcl-chap1

Sawyer, Barbara. (1984). 1984 Presidential Selection process- A Commentary. The Board of Trustees Michigan State University. MI: East Lansing.

The Board of Trustees Michigan State University. (1984). Minutes of the February 14, 1984 Special Meeting. MI: East Lansing.

The Board of Trustees Michigan State University. (1984). Presidential Search and Assessment Service Report. MI: East Lansing.

The Board of Trustees Michigan State University. (1984). Minutes of the March 3, 1984 meeting. MI: East Lansing.

The Board of Trustees Michigan State University. (1984). Minutes of the April 5, 1984 meeting. MI: East Lansing.

The Board of Trustees Michigan State University. (1984). Minutes of the May 21, 1984 meeting. MI: East Lansing.

The Board of Trustees Michigan State University. (1984). Minutes of the June 7, 1984 meeting. MI: East Lansing.

The Board of Trustees Michigan State University. (1984). Minutes of the November 15, 1984 meeting. MI: East Lansing.

The Board of Trustees Michigan State University. (1984). Presidential Search Process, Final Report. MI: East Lansing.