The experience was a valuable one. I felt listened to, and I honestly believe that the Committee members are taking the feedback seriously. Of course, I can’t guarantee that any of the feedback will be implemented, but I think that these input sessions serve a valuable purpose insofar as they guarantee that there is a quasi-public record of how the community felt during this time of transition.

I was recently invited to take part in one of the Presidential Search Committee’s input sessions. Yesterday, I attended the session focusing on graduate and professional students, and I thought I’d give a brief rundown of what I thought were the most valuable and interesting parts.

There was a large focus on privacy throughout the session, which was exempt from mandatory reporting obligations.

A note-taker compiled a summary of the feedback for the Committee, though we were told that no personal information would be included. Out of respect for that privacy, I won’t be using any participant’s name but my own.

There were about twenty students, though several remained silent throughout the session, which lasted about an hour. Eight members of the Presidential Search Committee attended. They were:

Pero Gaglo Dagbovie, a University Distinguished Professor of history and the Associate Dean of the Graduate School

Melanie Foster, member of the Board of Trustees and Co-Chair of the Presidential Search Committee

Thomas Glasmacher, laboratory director and project director at the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams

Tomas Hult, director of the International Business Center in the Eli Broad College of Business

Wanda Lipscomb, an associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry and the Senior Associate Dean for Diversity & Inclusion within the College of Human Medicine

David Porteous, a representative of the alumni and a former Trustee

Katherine “Cookie” Rifiotis, a James Madison College senior and the President of the Associated Students of Michigan State University

Gregory Spray, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders representing graduate and professional students

Comments were limited to two minutes. The whole session was based on three questions that remained on screen throughout.

1. What qualities, characteristics, and criteria are desired in a new president of MSU?

I spoke first. I noted that it was very important to me that the next president live in the Cowles House. I noted that having the president live on campus is an important symbol of the president’s engagement, and having the president being a visible presence on campus can help foster a sense of community.

With only two exceptions, every MSU president since 1941 has lived in the house. The first to decline to do so was Walter Adams, who served as interim president of the University for nine months following John Hannah’s resignation. The second was Lou Anna Simon, who spent her 2005-2018 presidency living in her East Lansing home. Simon generally used the Cowles House for official functions.

I pointed out that it’s not enough to require the president to live in the Cowles House, as the president has been required to do so for decades, according to p. 44 of the Board’s Policy Manual.

After the session, Trustee Foster informed me that Interim President John Engler does occasionally stay the night at the Cowles House, though it is not his primary residence. According to Foster, Engler couldn’t stay there when he first assumed the role because it was not fit for living after not having been used for that purpose in nearly two decades.

Other students focused heavily on making sure that the next president is committed to making sure that the voices of women and minorities are both welcome and heard. One student said that the next president needs to “think about the humanity” of community members. Another commenter expressed his desire that the next president be a woman. One student noted that the next president should understand the University’s position in systems that enable abuse and argued that diversity requires creating environments where minority students succeed, rather than simply increasing recruitment of those students.

Another student said that any candidate should be committed to the land-grant vision expressed in the Morrill Act. That student also emphasized that the University’s next leader should not be a CEO. This sentiment was echoed by others, many of whom said that the ideal candidate has an extensive academic background.

One Chinese graduate student said that it is important for the next president to be averse to “burying problems.” The student described receiving questions from the parents of several Chinese students questioning whether the University would remain open following Simon’s resignation, and decried the lack of guidance the University provided in answering such questions. In a brief interview after the session, the student told me that the idea of a leader resigning due to misconduct by subordinates was nearly unfathomable in Chinese culture.

2. Higher education is facing many challenges today. What do you consider to be the major challenges facing MSU?

In response to the second question, one student shared their experience of coming out to their family and the negative consequences they suffered as a result. The student cautioned that educated allies of minority communities assume that they know enough to support the oppressed based solely on their own experiences.

I decried what I called a “crisis of shared governance” at MSU. I noted my involvement on the Ad Hoc Committee for Bylaws Reform, and I argued that our review of other universities’ shared governance systems showed that Spartans are in a uniquely bad situation. By way of examples, I cited Interim President Engler’s spotty attendance record at University Council—even when there was no advance notice he would not be there—despite being responsible for chairing the body. I also pointed to Simon’s relatively well-known tendency to monopolize discussions of The Steering Committee, which I found particularly troubling given that the president is not a member of that body. I expressed that my ideal president would be able to name the seven standing committees and would meaningfully consult them; furthermore, the president should have a copy of the Bylaws for Academic Governance which is well-worn from frequent reference.

Another student identified a phenomenon that he called “academic precarity” as a major challenge. The term refers to the increasing share of non-tenured faculty. Non-tenured faculty are often paid less than their tenured counterparts. The student was concerned about the pay discrepancies, but he also wondered what effect this paradigm had on shared governance.

The final student to speak during this portion lamented the emphasis placed on sports given the University’s seven number-one nationally-ranked programs and encouraged the University to focus more on academics in its public relations efforts.

3. Focusing on the future, what do you consider to be important strengths and opportunities for MSU?

This portion was—unsurprisingly, some might say—the shortest of the session.

One student said that MSU has a major opportunity to make progress on gender issues. They hoped that the University would have a transgender or genderqueer president. Another student echoed those comments and went on to cite the University’s strong base of activists as an important strength.

Another commenter said that the University has a key opportunity to be the school that got it right regarding sexual misconduct. She hoped that the University, which she acknowledged has gotten many things wrong, would learn from its mistakes and lead the way forward.

Overall Impressions

On the whole, I was fairly pleased with my experience at the input session. I’ll admit that I went in feeling pretty cynical, but I was pleasantly surprised.

I was struck by how diligently and frequently members of the Committee were taking notes. While I can’t speculate as to whether the panelists will listen to the feedback they heard, it’s clear to me that they heard it.

While I was initially put off by the fact that the Committee members would not be taking questions, I ended up seeing why that made sense. For one thing, the nineteen members of the Committee are so diverse and so numerous that no authoritative answer on nearly any issue could be given by any single member. This is especially true given the non-disclosure agreements each signed.

The experience was a valuable one. I felt listened to, and I honestly believe that the Committee members are taking the feedback seriously. Of course, I can’t guarantee that any of the feedback will be implemented, but I think that these input sessions serve a valuable purpose insofar as they guarantee that there is a quasi-public record of how the community felt during this time of transition. I’d encourage all members of the University community to attend at least one of the sessions.

Tyler Silvestri Tyler Silvestri is a third-year law student at MSU who received his bachelor’s degree in Political Theory & Constitutional Democracy from MSU’s James Madison College in 2017. He spent one year as the Assistant Director of ASMSU’s Student Rights Advocates and two years as a Resident Assistant. He is the Chairperson of the University Committee on Academic Governance. He can be reached at Tyler@onthebanksmsu.com. See author's posts