Professor Jeffrey Harrison is in the news again on the subject of the University of Florida law school dean search. Saturday he published an op/ed, UF Administration is Tone Deaf in Search for Law Dean, in the Gainesville Sun. The central thrust of his piece is the administration's marginalization of law faculty in the search process. Perhaps of more interest to Lounge readers, however, he argues that the school's search firm "bungled" a crucial part of the search:
It is increasingly clear that the firm did not fully advise the candidates about Florida's open records policy: All materials and names associated with the search are public. Exacerbating this was the firm's decision to announce all 24 candidates at once. This led to a massive data dump. In the past, although public as the law requires, the process allowed publicity-shy dean candidates to have their names trickled out over several months and allowed them ample time to drop out if the competition looked stiff.
He also comments on the utility of using a search firm in law dean searches generally:
The law teaching world...is a small one, and hiring a search firm to find a law dean candidate is like hiring one to find a football stadium in Gainesville. This means for what was likely tens of thousands of dollars the search firm appears to have made phone calls and forwarded curricula vitae (CV). At most it did what a first-year professor could have done.
Harrison is troubled by the lack of faculty involvement in paring the list from 24 to 10, and then from 10 to a small on-campus interview cohort. He may be right that the committee is unusually thin on law faculty. But how common it is for dean search committees to solicit faculty input on candidates prior to the selection of finalists? I had thought that most dean search committees, operating in the absence of open record laws, kept the identity of candidates under wraps until they'd made their final cut.
I think the solution is the opposite of what Professor Harrison suggests -- not more faculty involvement in the Dean search, but less. When wholesale changes are perhaps needed, and perhaps a faculty is looking for assurance that nothing will change, it might be better to leave the faculty out of it.
Perhaps have them interview with students and alums instead. In most industries, one does not get the opportunity to pick their boss.
Posted by: Kipper | January 27, 2014 at 12:27 PM
As someone who rants almost daily about too much faculty involvement, Kipper has hit me in a weak spot. I can hardly disagree. I do think, though, that there are some realities that Dan's summary of the piece leaves out. First, the thesis of the article is that if the process is not viewed as legitimate to the faculty, a new dean may find it rough going. I am not sure how much involvement that requires but anyone in law teaching knows, regardless of the formal structure, the dean serves at the pleasure of the faculty.
Second, and perhaps more important, is that while there can be too much faculty involvement (it could turn into a hellish faculty meeting) it would be nice to have people on the committee who know something about legal education. In the Florida case, as I noted in the original piece, the committee is composed of 11 people a majority of whom have no significant knowledge (or perhaps any at all) of legal education. Nor are there any ex law school deans or faculty in the central administration. [My personal preference is that committee members also not be former or current law school administrators but that is only because I believe to hold those positions you have to be agreeable to authority.]
Third, as the original piece notes, 24 candidates were trimmed to 10 three days after they were announced in a 2 hour meeting which consisted of looking at CVs and relying on hunches. As one committee member said, "I'd be willing to take a flier on that guy." It might have been nice to ask faculty if the had any insights into the 24.
Like it or not, a dean's success may depend on faculty buying into the process. A choice of finalists requires people who know what to look for. Our process may fail on both points. I say may fail because we have, in my view some candidates whose quality exceeds that of the process itself. [As always please excuse all typos, etc.]
Posted by: Jeff Harrison | January 27, 2014 at 11:05 PM
Kipper, you misunderstand the role of the dean. Law schools have are faculty-governed institutions. As a practical matter, governance is shared between the faculty and the dean. But the dean is not the boss of the law school in the same way that a person in a similar position would be a boss in another industry.
Posted by: Ben Barros | January 28, 2014 at 09:40 AM
Ben -- Usually there is a Board of Trustees that governs the institution.
Posted by: Kipper | January 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM
Actually, Kipper, as unfortunate as it seems since many faculty just govern the institution to serve their own needs, Ben is right. Yes, there is a formal structure and a dean can be fired by higher ups but once the faculty sours on a dean, he or she is out. Deans are more akin to elected politicians who are subject to instant recall. Since they are generally tired of teaching and research the are very focused on keeping an administrative post. Thus, they have to keep a majority of the faculty happy no matter how misguided.At the same time the cannot make too many alums unhappy or donations dry up and they have to play ball with those with formal authority to fire them. In addition, faculty make many of the day to day decisions about classes offered, grading standards, who is hired and fired.
Posted by: Jeff Harrison | January 28, 2014 at 12:39 PM