SELECTING AN NMSU PRESIDENT: A LETTER TO THE REGENTS AND A COMMENT

 24-03-07

NMSU Regents:

 

I have read with interest the resumes and DEI statements of the five finalists for the presidency of NMSU.  I am disappointed with the search committee and its choices.

 

Under its heading “Opportunities and Expectations,” the search committee stated that it would ask the candidates “to address the following significant priorities:

 

·       Preserve the land-grant, spacegrant mission of New Mexico State University and elevate distinctive attributes.

·       Strengthen commitments to provide a student-centered experience and grow enrollment.

·       Grow fundraising opportunities and engage with the broader community.

·       Foster a sense of belonging and inclusion.

·       Provide leadership that demonstrates understanding and commitment to the principles of shared governance and responsibility.

·       Champion academic excellence and advance research and creative activity.

 

Given the phrase “significant priorities,” I assumed that the search committee’s list of priorities itself would reflect NMSU’s or the search committee’s priorities.  So it came as a shock that, of the six priorities, academics—“Champion academic excellence and advance research and creative activity”—ranked last.  The search committee seems to discount NMSU’s status as an academic institution, with academics constituting its primary rationale.  Instead, it ranks more highly the other five priorities, all of which are ancillary, though important, considerations, in no evident order.

 

The same criticism applies to the “Professional Qualifications and Qualities.”  Seventeen items are listed in no evident order and in no grouping of related items.  This lack of ranking and grouping suggests the work of an overly large committee of 24 members.  It seems that every suggestion was accepted and added to the lists as it arose.

 

I believe that only one of the five candidates has anything resembling the kind of academic background and university experience in academic administration which would well serve NMSU.

 

The inadequacies of the “DEI Statements” of all candidates reveal their deficiencies.  Two statements name no minorities who might be addressed by DEI efforts.  A third made passing references to a “Hispanic-Serving Institution” and the “LGBTQIA communities.”  A fourth mentioned Hispanics and Blacks or African Americans.  A fifth mentioned African American, Asian-American, Hispanic/Latin X, and LGBTQIA groups.  None of them mentioned religious groups which are sometimes marginalized, among others: Muslims and Jews.  In short, none of the candidates seems to have the breadth of perspective required for diversity as a pre-condition of equity and inclusion (and for the fourth priority).  Their myopia is the more notable because of today’s political issues and campus demonstrations.

 

In sum, I believe that none of these candidates, if selected for the presidency, can elevate NMSU academically or improve the institutional quality of life.  I wish it were otherwise because mediocrity begets mediocrity.

 

Michael L. Hays

 

 

24-03-09

 

An additional comment not sent to the regents on the candidates’ DEI statements.

 

Without exception, all five of their statements detail work on committees and in programs.  This professional activity involves collaborative work with others, is mostly administrative, and only imperfectly identifies individual responsibilities and contributions.  Although the candidates might have undertaken such work because of a personal commitment as well as a professional obligation, their statements mention little personal involvement based on empathy or a concern for social justice.  With one exception, an embarrassing one—one candidate mentions making “close friends” of two Hispanic students at NMSU but lost track of them when they dropped out—, none stated a DEI commitment based on personal experiences with people of different races, religions, gender orientations, and backgrounds.  The exclusive focus on the larger minorities, blacks and Hispanics, and on women is blind to smaller minorities, unacknowledged and presumably overlooked—one reason for questioning the candidates’ understanding of and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.  A DEI statement reporting the discharge of a professional obligation does not do much to signify such a commitment.