High Stakes in Presidential Search
September 5, 2012
On the first day of this year’s shopping period, the Yale community received an email from President Richard Levin announcing that, after twenty years as the President of Yale and many more as a member of its faculty and administration, he will resign at the end of the 2012-13 academic year.
While President Levin’s tenure certainly brought about some heartening changes—most notably, a strengthened relationship with New Haven and a renewed focus on the sciences—some of the changes have been deeply disappointing. The return of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps is not only a problematic partnership between militarization and education. It is a collaboration with an institution that has been repeatedly shown to be unsafe for female soldiers, who face astronomical rates of sexual harassment and assault, and one that refuses to allow trans persons to participate at all. Furthermore, the development of the Yale-NUS program is a disappointing sacrifice of free speech and academic freedom for the chance to advance Yale’s brand; while there are plenty of objections to be raised, worth noting is that Yale-NUS will exist in a nation where homosexuality is a criminal offense.
A second email followed from Edward Bass, the Yale Corporation’s Senior Fellow, explaining the process by which a new president would be chosen. It will follow in the model of the 1992-93 committee which chose Levin: eight trustees and four faculty members will serve. Members of the community were invited to submit names, and many other sources of input—trustee liaisons and faculty counselors are being appointed for faculty, staff and students, open forums are being planned, and AYA is making a special effort to engage alumni—have also been offered. But these efforts seem somewhat hollow, and it is worth questioning how much true input these other four members will have. The numerical imbalance—weighted heavily toward the Yale Corporation—certainly raises questions about who Yale considers itself responsible to. Is it its faculty, students, or New Haven community, or, overwhelmingly, its trustees?
Only two of the eight members—so far, all members of the Yale Corporation– are women; given that only four of the Corporation’s sixteen members are women, this is not entirely surprising, but still troubling. And while, certainly, the members of the committee should bring diverse perspectives to their work, six of the eight of them are high-ranking business officials. A university is, inevitably, like a business in many ways. But it must prioritize its true goals—the development of scholars, the free exchange of ideas, the application of thought to positive global change. Unlike the business world, a university must not privilege “efficiency” and “profit-making,” and it is crucial that the search committee seeks a candidate with appropriate priorities.
In an open letter pointedly addressed to Dear Yale “alumnae and alumni,” a group of students— Joshua Batson (DC ’08), Donna Horning (DC ’13), Dara Lind (BR ’09), Kate Selker (DC ’11) and Paul Selker (DC ’08)—offered the names of four faculty members whom they thought could be valuable additions to the search committee. Corporate executives they are not: Stephen Pitti ’91, Meg Urry, George Chauncey ’77 ’89 PhD, and Joseph Roach are all well-known as progressive voices on campus, advocating for, among other things, Yale’s Ethnicity, Race, and Migration program, the presence of women in the sciences, queer rights and scholarship, and the importance of the arts in an academic institution.
While the official deadline—which allowed for only one business day of public input—has passed, Batson, Horning, Lind, Selker, and Selker encourage members of the Yale Community to continue to contact Edward Bass at senior.fellow@yale.edu.
If the search committee meant to find a new individual to best lead our university is, in itself, so disappointingly homogeneous and problematic, our expectations could be low—and rightfully so. While, certainly, the President is not the sole force in guiding the university, his or her decisions very much influence the direction it will head in. (Incidentally, the only woman to hold the post was Hanna Holborn Gray, who served briefly as Acting President from 1977-1978.)
It cannot be understated how crucial it is that the president of Yale advocates for the best interests of all its students and for the very goals of Yale as an educational institution. Whether or not he or she serves a term as long as Levin’s 20 years, this individual very much sets the university’s direction. If, as Bass writes, “The selection of the president is the most important responsibility of the Yale Corporation,” we should—and do—expect better. The upcoming selection will seriously influence Yale’s direction long beyond our time here, and we cannot afford to miss this opportunity to make our voices heard.
Julia Calagiovanni is a sophomore in Yale College. She is an associate editor for Broad Recognition.
Comments (1)
Open letter to Russlynn Ali, Secretary OCR:
I respect your herculean efforts in supporting Title IX, but your office has not exhausted all avenues to hold Yale University accountable for its deliberate indifference and violation of the Title IX law for over 35 years. In fact, DOJ has pursued other Title IX-violating institutions. Why not Yale? Yale was fined for violating the Clery Act, as well and now Yale has been found deliberately denying services required by federal law which has resulted in a hostile environment and thousands of victims.
With regard to your response to Nathan Harden on the Huffington Post website – many are frustrated because it is obvious the OCR had evidence of deliberate indifference at Yale – and you know this is true. These findings are grounds for bringing the case to the justice dept. Yale deliberately did NOT follow the law that has been on the books for forty years! In addition, your office has allowed President Levin to send out a dishonest message to the entire Yale community which is a current violation of the resolution agreement. The first line of President Levin’s message is below:
To the Yale Community:
I write to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has closed its investigation into Yale’s compliance with Title IX, with no findings of noncompliance.
According to the resolution agreement OCR has neither found Yale “in-compliance” or “non-compliant.” No findings of noncompliance is not true and is not according to the resolution agreement. If there had truly been Title IX compliance, there would not be a six-page list of requirements for Yale to fulfill, and the university would not be on “parole” until 2014.
In addition, in the Yale Alumni Magazine OCR Regional Director Thomas Hibino is quoted:
As OCR regional director Thomas Hibino explained in a letter to the university, the investigation focused on three questions: did Yale appoint someone to ensure compliance with Title IX and adequately inform the campus community? Do students and staff have access to comprehensive grievance procedures? And did the university allow a “sexually hostile environment to be created on campus”by not preventing or responding adequately to incidents of misogynistic behavior on campus? Yale Alumni Magazine
President Levin’s message does not “adequately inform the campus.”
Also, this first sentence referring to possible lawsuits would not be in the OCR letter sent to Dorothy Robinson, Yale’s lead attorney.
Please note that complainants may have the right to file a private law suit in Federal court, whether or not OCR identified compliance concerns. Also, it may be necessary to release this document and related records upon request, as the information is subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act.
The facts are that Yale University has covered up thousands of sexual misconduct incidents since the original Title IX complaint Alexander v Yale in 1977. These incidents have been covered-up because Yale never provided adequate, federally mandated support services to victims wanting to press charges and report to police. Of course, Yale was strongly supporting overwhelmed students to choose the informal route that involved no police report. Yale was hiding these incidents using the informal route keeping them out of the statistics and then not reporting these crimes to the Department of Education – so the Yale brand would not be tarnished.
According to the only sexual misconduct reports Yale has ever produced because your office required this, there were 101 sexual misconduct incidents in the last year. Let’s multiply that number by the years since the Title IX landmark case Alexander v Yale in 1977, 35 years ago. One hundred multiplied by 35 equals 3,500 victims!
Remember, many of these incidents go unreported.
There are 1,000s of sexual misconduct victims who have suffered at Yale since Alexander v Yale in 1977 – Yale made promises then, too. Yale has never been held accountable, and this lack of ethical leadership is being allowed to continue. If you believe Yale has changed its ways, why are the leaders who ignored federal law for so many years still in their powerful positions? Lack of leadership is pervasive in our institutions.
Where can we find ethical leadership? Does this remind you of Penn State? The Catholic Church?
There is a shameful current context for this massive cover-up, lack of institutional ethics and leadership – and resulting number of victims. The situation is comparable to the number of Catholic Church/Priest victims and the lack of leadership, coverup and victims at Penn State. Yale’s victims were not children, but they were vulnerable students who have suffered and then were railroaded by Yale’s unlawful procedures and hostile environment.
There is more to Levin stepping down than his 20 years of service.
Meanwhile, the victims are re-traumatized once again – knowing Yale is being allowed to cover up the truth in the outcome of the investigation.
Your office has allowed Yale to skirt real accountability. Is this the spirit of the law? A wealthy institution with abundant funding, resources, and highly educated human capital knowingly violates landmark federal law and then is not held accountable?
Sincerely,
posted by dorothy brett September 6th, 2012 at 1:32 pm