The chancellor search group should name its finalists

As the University searches for its next chancellor, the committee charged with the task is operating in secrecy while narrowing its selection down to three finalists.

At that point, UNC- system President Thomas Ross will give his recommendation for hire to the Board of Governors.

State law allows applicant information to be kept confidential, according to an email from Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Leslie Strohm.

But UNC’s next chancellor will, for good reason, have many different constituents to satisfy. For this reason, the University should institute a more transparent process — for this chancellor and those to come in the future.

Although the committee held public forums to solicit input on the selection process, this alone simply isn’t enough in the way of openness.

The public deserves to be informed when the committee selects the finalists. Some of the University’s most high-profile deans are rightly subject to rigorous, public vetting upon being named finalists.

Being the next chancellor of UNC can rightly be perceived as a pinnacle of one’s academic career. Candidates should be proud to have their names announced as finalists.

It is understandable that finalists working in positions at other institutions might feel that having name linked to the search could put their current job at risk.

But, as finalists, they should be willing to put themselves in that position for a chance at one of the most prestigious university leaders in the country.

UNC touts itself as one of the elite public universities in the nation. And yet, in this regard, it is woefully behind some of its peers.

In fact, many states have laws explicitly prohibiting the very secrecy that this search committee deems vital.

UNC’s search committee shouldn’t need to release every single name they have considered.

But the public has a right to know those candidates who have applied, accepted interviews and truly want the position.

UNC has been called the “University of the people.” It belongs to every citizen of the state, not just to the 21 members of the search committee.

It is important that the University and the committee pursue an open selection process. They should give candidates the opportunity to address the community and the community the chance to meet and interact with the candidates.

In light of the recent scandals that have rocked the University, and led to the resignation of Chancellor Holden Thorp, it’s all the more important to start the next chancellorship with an open and public selection process. Secrecy does little to fix the cover-up reputation that has haunted the University of late.

Beyond just naming the candidates, some other schools require candidate interviews to be public and allow for an open forum, as well.

Candidates are brought to campus and participate in forums. Participants in these forums include the board of trustees, faculty, students and the community at-large.

Potential candidates should be eager to show those to whom they’re ultimately responsible what it is they have to offer the University.

The position of chancellor is, by nature, public and thoroughly scrutinized. The committee should give the most promising candidates the opportunity to be open and forthcoming about their interest.